Upload
hathu
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1
LEXSEE 407 US 225
QuestionedAs of: Dec 18, 2009
MITCHUM, DBA BOOK MART v. FOSTER ET AL.
No. 70-27
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
407 U.S. 225; 92 S. Ct. 2151; 32 L. Ed. 2d 705; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104
December 13, 1971, Argued June 19, 1972, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
DISPOSITION: 315 F.Supp. 1387, reversed and re-manded.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee prosecuting at-torney brought suit against appellant bookstore owner to close down his bookstore. The bookstore owner sought to restrain the state court proceedings, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida refused to do so on the grounds that the injunctive relief sought did not come within the exceptions of the Anti-In-junction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. The bookstore owner challenged this judgment.
OVERVIEW: The prosecuting attorney sought to close down the bookstore as a public nuisance. The bookstore owner alleged that the state officers were depriving him of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 on the ground that the state court was unconstitutionally applying Flor-ida laws so as to cause him great and irreparable harm. The district court refused to enjoin the state court pro-ceeding because the relief sought did not come under any
of the exceptions set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. On ap-peal, the court held that federal injunctive relief was ap-propriate only where the irreparable injury was both great and immediate, the state law was flagrantly uncon-stitutional, or there was a showing of bad faith that would call for equitable relief. The court added that to qualify under one of those expressly authorized excep-tions, the federal law did not have to expressly reference ß 2283. The test was whether an act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state proceeding. The court held that 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 fell within the exception.
OUTCOME: The Court reversed the district court's or-der denying injunctive relief and remanded the case for further proceedings because the statute under which the bookstore owner sought relief was an authorized excep-tion to the Anti-Injunction Act.
CORE TERMS: anti-injunction, injunction, expressly authorized, enjoin, Act of Congress, civil rights, federal-ism, immunities secured, companion cases, redress, color, state law, federal government, federal right, in-junctive relief, statutory exceptions, criminal prosecu-tions, deprivation, predecessor, qualify, comity, Judiciary Act, federal laws, interpleader, relitigation, irreparable, effectuate, restrain, evident, corpus
Page 2
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction Act[HN1] See 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActCivil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope[HN2] An Act of Congress, 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983, ex-pressly authorizes a "suit in equity" to redress the depri-vation, under color of state law, of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.
Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope[HN3] See 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction Act[HN4] On its face the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283, is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. Any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to ß 2283 if it is to be up-held.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > General Overview[HN5] Even the possible unconstitutionality of a state statute "on its face" does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it. However, the United States Supreme Court has clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain exceptional circumstances: where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions, or where there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circum-stances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions ap-propriate.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActGovernments > Federal Government > U.S. Congress[HN6] In order to qualify under the "expressly autho-rized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not contain an express reference to that statute. No prescribed formula is required; an authorization need not expressly refer to 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an excep-tion. Thirdly, in order to qualify as an "expressly autho-rized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, an act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely fed-eral right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of eq-uity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding. The test is whether an act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActCivil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview[HN7] 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 is a product of a vast transfor-mation from the concepts of federalism that had pre-vailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction statute was enacted. The very purpose of ß 1983 is to in-terpose the federal courts between the states and the peo-ple, as guardians of the people's federal rights: to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. In carrying out that purpose, Congress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunctions in ß 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a "suit in equity" as one of the means of redress. Federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circum-stances be essential to prevent great, immediate, and ir-reparable loss of a person's constitutional rights. For these reasons, under the criteria established in previous decisions construing the anti-injunction statute, ß 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the "expressly autho-rized" exception of that law.
SUMMARY:
After a Florida county prosecutor had instituted state court proceedings to close down the appellant's book-store as a public nuisance, and after the state court had issued an order prohibiting continued operation of the bookstore, the appellant, suing in the United States Dis-trict Court for the Northern District of Florida, sought in-junctive relief against the state court proceedings, on the
Page 3
ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and ir-reparable harm. The appellant relied on a federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) authorizing suits in equity to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of federal constitutional rights. A three-judge District Court was convened and held that injunctive relief was pre-cluded by the anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunctions stay-ing state court proceedings "except as expressly autho-rized by Act of Congress" (315 F Supp 1387).
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court re-versed and remanded the case. In an opinion by Stewart, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court, it was held that 1983 constituted an "expressly authorized" ex-ception to 2283, and that 2283 thus did not preclude in-junctive relief in the present case.
Burger, Ch. J., joined by White and Blackmun, JJ., concurred in the court's opinion and noted that although 2283 did not bar an injunction, the District Court should, on remand, consider whether general notions of equity or principles of federalism precluded the issuance of an in-junction against state court proceedings.
Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., did not participate.
LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:
[***LEdHN1]
COURTS ß700.5
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[1A][1B]
The federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) au-thorizing a suit in equity to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of federal constitutional rights, consti-tutes an "expressly authorized" exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting fed-eral courts from granting injunctions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," and a Federal District Court errs in holding that, because of the anti-injunction statute, it is without power in a 1983 action to enjoin a proceeding pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.
[***LEdHN2]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[2]
The federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) providing, subject to specified exceptions, that federal courts may not grant injunctions staying state court pro-ceedings, does not merely state a flexible doctrine of comity, but imposes an absolute ban upon the issuance of a federal injunction against a pending state court pro-ceeding, in the absence of one of the recognized excep-tions, regardless of whether a pending state court pro-ceeding is civil or criminal, and regardless of how extra-ordinary the particular circumstances may be.
[***LEdHN3]
INJUNCTION ß80
enforcement of statute --
Headnote:[3]
Even the possible unconstitutionality of a statute on its face does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it.
[***LEdHN4]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction -- pending state criminal proceed-ings --
Headnote:[4]
Federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution may be proper in certain exceptional circumstances, such as where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, or where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibi-tions, or where there is a showing of bad faith, harass-ment, or other unsual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.
[***LEdHN5]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction -- pending state criminal proceed-ings --
Headnote:[5]
Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction, and perhaps in other extra-ordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown, is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.
[***LEdHN6]
COURTS ß691
Page 4
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[6]
The basic purpose of the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) providing, subject to specified exceptions, that federal courts may not grant injunctions staying state court proceedings, is to prevent needless friction between state and federal courts.
[***LEdHN7]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[7]
In order to qualify under the "expressly authorized" exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunc-tions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," a federal law need not contain an express reference to the anti-injunction statute.
[***LEdHN8]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[8]
A federal law need not expressly authorize an in-junction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting in-junctions staying state court proceedings "except as ex-pressly authorized by Act of Congress."
[***LEdHN9]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --
Headnote:[9]
In order to qualify as an "expressly authorized" ex-ception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunc-tions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or rem-edy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, which could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding; however, in order to
come within this exception, an Act of Congress need not, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be totally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti- injunction statute; the test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.
[***LEdHN10]
RIGHTS ß12.5
remedy for deprivation --
Headnote:[10]
The purpose of the federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) authorizing an action at law, a suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress of a deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Federal Constitution and federal laws, is to interpose the federal courts between the states and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights, and thus to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial; in carrying out this purpose, Congress, by expressly au-thorizing a suit in equity as one of the means of redress, has plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunc-tions in 1983 actions.
[***LEdHN11]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction --
Headnote:[11]
Federal injunctive relief against a state court pro-ceeding can in some circumstances be essential to pre-vent great, immediate, and irreparable loss of a person's constitutional rights.
SYLLABUS
Title 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, which authorizes a suit in equity to redress the deprivation under color of state law "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . ," is within that exception of the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, that provides that a federal court may not enjoin state court proceed-ings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Con-gress." And in this ß 1983 action, though the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a fed-eral court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding (cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and companion cases) are not questioned, the District Court is held to have erred in holding that the anti-injunction statute ab-solutely barred its enjoining a pending state court pro-
Page 5
ceeding under any circumstances whatsoever. Pp. 228-243.
COUNSEL: Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul Shimek, Jr.
Raymond L. Marky, Assistant Attorney General of Flor-ida, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant Attorney General.
George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, and Michael R. Perle and John DeCicco, Deputy Attor-neys General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae.
JUDGES: Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all members joined except Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Burger, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which White and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 243.
OPINION BY: STEWART
OPINION
[*226] [***708] [**2153] MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. [***LEdHR1A] [1A]The federal anti-injunction statute provides that a federal court [HN1] "may not grant an in-junction to stay proceedings in a State court except as ex-pressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where neces-sary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 1[HN2] An Act of Congress, 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, expressly authorizes a "suit in equity" to redress "the deprivation," under color of state law, "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . ." 2 The question before us [**2154] is whether this "Act of Congress" comes within the "ex-pressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute so as to permit a federal court in a ß 1983 suit to grant an injunction to stay a proceeding pending in a state court. This question, which has divided the federal courts, 3 has lurked in the background of many of our re-cent cases, but we have not until today explicitly decided it. 4
1 28 U. S. C. ß 2283.2 The statute provides in full: [HN3] "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordi-nance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."3 Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (CA3) (ß 1983 is an "expressly authorized" exception), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (CA4) (ß 1983 is not an "expressly au-thorized" exception).4 See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 484 n. 2; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 613 n. 3; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54. See also Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 556; Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15.
In Younger, supra, MR. JUSTICE DOU-GLAS was the only member of the Court who took a position on the question now before us. He expressed the view that ß 1983 is included in the "expressly authorized exception to ß 2283 . . . ." 401 U.S., at 62. Cf. id., at 54 (STEWART, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 120 n. 14 (separate opin-ion of BRENNAN, J., joined by WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ.).
[*227] I
The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Florida, brought a proceeding in a Florida court to close down the appellant's bookstore as a public nuisance under the claimed authority of Florida law. The state court [***709] entered a preliminary order prohibiting contin-ued operation of the bookstore. After further inconclu-sive proceedings in the state courts, the appellant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the actions of the state judicial and law enforcement officials were de-priving him of rights protected by the First and Four-teenth Amendments. Relying upon 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, 5
he asked for injunctive and declaratory relief against the state court proceedings, on the ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and irreparable harm. A single federal district judge issued temporary restraining orders, and a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. ßß 2281 and 2284. After a hearing, the three-judge court dissolved the temporary restraining orders and re-fused to enjoin the state court proceeding, holding that the "injunctive relief sought here [*228] as to the pro-ceedings pending in the Florida courts does not come un-der any of the exceptions set forth in Section 2283. It is not expressly authorized by Act of Congress, it is not necessary in the aid of this court's jurisdiction, and it is not sought in order to protect or effectuate any judgment
Page 6
of this court." 315 F.Supp. 1387, 1389. An appeal was brought directly here under 28 U. S. C. ß 1253, 6 and we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 U.S. 941.
5 Federal jurisdiction was based upon 28 U. S. C. ß 1343 (3). The statute states in relevant part:
"The district courts shall have original juris-diction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
. . . .
"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immu-nity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States . . . ."6 The statute provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or deny-ing, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges."
[**2155] II [***LEdHR2] [2]In denying injunctive relief, the Dis-trict Court relied on this Court's decision in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-neers, 398 U.S. 281. The Atlantic Coast Line case did not deal with the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, 7 but the Court's opinion in that case does bring into sharp focus the critical importance of the question now before us. For in that case we ex-pressly rejected the view that the anti-injunction statute merely states a flexible doctrine of comity, 8 and made clear that the statute imposes an absolute ban upon the is-suance of a federal injunction against a pending [*229] state court proceeding, in the [***710] absence of one of the recognized exceptions:
[HN4] "On its face the present Act is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, un-less the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a 'principle of comity,' not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. The ar-gument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that ac-tion cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. We cannot accept any such contention. . . . [We] hold that any injunction against state court proceedings other-
wise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to ß 2283 if it is to be upheld. . . ." 398 U.S., at 286-287.
7 At issue were the other two exceptions of the anti-injunction statute: "where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judg-ments." Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brother-hood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 288.8 See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Vil-lage of Skokie, 173 F.2d 1; Baines, 337 F.2d, at 593. See also Taylor & Willis, The Power of Fed-eral Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1194 (1933).
It follows, in the present context, that if 42 U. S. C. ß 1983 is not within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, then a federal equity court is wholly without power to grant any relief in a ß 1983 suit seeking to stay a state court proceeding. In short, if a ß 1983 action is not an "expressly authorized" statutory exception, the anti-injunction law absolutely prohibits in such an action all federal equitable intervention in a pending state court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, and regardless of how extraordinary the particular cir-cumstances may be.
Last Term, in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and its companion cases, 9 the Court dealt at length with the subject of federal judicial intervention in pending [*230] state criminal prosecutions. In Younger a three-judge federal district court in a ß 1983 action had enjoined a criminal prosecution pending in a California court. In asking us to reverse that judgment, the appellant argued that the injunction was in violation of the federal anti-in-junction statute. 401 U.S., at 40. But the Court carefully eschewed any reliance on the statute in reversing the judgment, basing its decision instead upon what the Court called "Our Federalism" -- upon "the national pol-icy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circum-stances." 401 U.S., at 41, 44.
9 Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66; Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82; Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200; Byrne v. Kar-alexis, 401 U.S. 216.
[**2156] [***LEdHR3] [3] [***LEdHR4] [4] [***LEdHR5] [5]In Younger, this Court emphatically reaffirmed "the fundamental policy against federal inter-ference with state criminal prosecutions." 401 U.S., at 46.It made clear that [HN5] even "the possible unconsti-tutionality of a statute 'on its face' does not in itself jus-
Page 7
tify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it." 401 U.S., at 54. At the same time, however, the Court clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain excep-tional circumstances -- where irreparable injury is "both great and immediate," 401 U.S., at 46, where the state law is "'flagrantly and patently violative of express con-stitutional prohibitions,'" 401 U.S., at 53, [***711] or where there is a showing of "bad faith, harassment, or . . . other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief." 401 U.S., at 54. In the companion case of Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, the Court said that "only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions un-dertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraor-dinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending [*231] state prosecutions appropriate." 401 U.S., at 85. See also Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 203.
While the Court in Younger and its companion cases expressly disavowed deciding the question now before us -- whether ß 1983 comes within the "expressly autho-rized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, 401 U.S., at 54 -- it is evident that our decisions in those cases cannot be disregarded in deciding this question. In the first place, if ß 1983 is not within the statutory exception, then the anti-injunction statute would have absolutely barred the injunction issued in Younger, as the appellant in that case argued, and there would have been no occa-sion whatever for the Court to decide that case upon the "policy" ground of "Our Federalism." Secondly, if ß 1983 is not within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, then we must overrule Younger and its companion cases insofar as they recog-nized the permissibility of injunctive relief against pend-ing criminal prosecutions in certain limited and excep-tional circumstances. For, under the doctrine of Atlantic Coast Line, the anti-injunction statute would, in a ß 1983 case, then be an "absolute prohibition" against federal equity intervention in a pending state criminal or civil proceeding -- under any circumstances whatever.
The Atlantic Coast Line and Younger cases thus serve to delineate both the importance and the finality of the question now before us. And it is in the shadow of those cases that the question must be decided.
III [***LEdHR6] [6]The anti-injunction statute goes back almost to the beginnings of our history as a Nation. In 1793, Congress enacted a law providing that no "writ of injunction be granted [by any federal court] to stay pro-ceedings [*232] in any court of a state. . . ." Act of March 2, 1793; 1 Stat. 335. The precise origins of the
legislation are shrouded in obscurity, 10 but the consistent [***712] understanding [*233] [**2157] has been that its basic purpose is to prevent "needless friction between state and federal courts." Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Gas Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9.The law remained unchanged until 1874, when it was amended to permit a federal court to stay state court proceedings that interfered with the ad-ministration of a federal bankruptcy proceeding. 11 The present wording of the legislation was adopted with the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code in 1948.
10 "The history of this provision in the Judiciary Act of 1793 is not fully known. We know that on December 31, 1790, Attorney General Edmund Randolph reported to the House of Representa-tives on desirable changes in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Am. State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 17, pp. 21-36. The most serious question raised by Randolph concerned the arduousness of the cir-cuit duties imposed on the Supreme Court jus-tices. But the Report also suggested a number of amendments dealing with procedural matters. A section of the proposed bill submitted by him provided that 'no injunction in equity shall be granted by a district court to a judgment at law of a State court.' Id., p. 26. Randolph explained that this clause 'will debar the district court from in-terfering with the judgments at law in the State courts; for if the plaintiff and defendant rely upon the State courts, as far as the judgment, they ought to continue there as they have begun. It is enough to split the same suit into one at law, and another in equity, without adding a further sepa-ration, by throwing the common law side of the question into the State courts, and the equity side into the federal courts.' Id., p. 34. The Report was considered by the House sitting as a Com-mittee of the Whole, and then was referred to successive special committees for further consid-eration. No action was taken until after Chief Justice Jay and his associates wrote the President that their circuit-riding duties were too burden-some. American State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 32, p. 51. In response to this complaint, which was transmitted to Congress, the Act of March 2, 1793, was passed, containing in ß 5, inter alia, the prohibition against staying state court pro-ceedings.
"Charles Warren in his article Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347, suggests that this provision was the direct consequence of Randolph's report. This seems doubtful, in view of the very narrow purpose of Randolph's proposal, namely, that federal courts
Page 8
of equity should not interfere with the enforce-ment of judgments at law rendered in the state courts. See Taylor and Willis, The Power of Fed-eral Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1171, n. 14.
"There is no record of any debates over the statute. See 3 Annals of Congress (1791-93). It has been suggested that the provision reflected the then strong feeling against the unwarranted intrusion of federal courts upon state sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, was decided on February 18, 1793, less than two weeks before the provision was enacted into law. The signifi-cance of this proximity is doubtful. Compare Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347-348, with Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 291-292. Much more probable is the suggestion that the provision reflected the prevailing prejudices against equity jurisdiction. The Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.), chronicling the pro-ceedings of the Senate while he was one of its members (1789-1791), contains abundant evi-dence of a widespread hostility to chancery prac-tice. See especially, pp. 92-94, 101-06 (debate on the bill that became Judiciary Act of 1789). Moreover, Senator Ellsworth (soon to become Chief Justice of the United States), the principal draftsman of both the 1789 and 1793 Judiciary Acts, often indicated a dislike for equity jurisdic-tion. See Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth (1905 ed.) 194; Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.) 103-04; Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 96-100." Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 130-132.
See also Note, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 612 (1971); 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302 (1965); H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1075-1078 (1953); Durfee & Sloss, Federal Injunction Against Proceedings in State Courts: The Life History of a Statute, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 1145 (1932).11 As so amended, the statute provided that state court proceedings could be enjoined "where such injunction may be authorized by any law re-lating to proceedings in bankruptcy." Rev. Stat. ß 720 (1874).
Despite the seemingly uncompromising language of the anti-injunction statute prior to 1948, the Court soon [*234] recognized that exceptions must be made to its blanket prohibition if the import and purpose of other
Acts of Congress were to be given their intended scope. So it was that, in addition to the bankruptcy law excep-tion that Congress explicitly recognized in 1874, the Court through the years found that federal courts were empowered to enjoin state court proceedings, despite the anti-injunction statute, in [***713] carrying out the will [**2158] of Congress under at least six other federal laws. These covered a broad spectrum of congressional action: (1) legislation providing for removal of litigation from state to federal courts, 12 (2) legislation limiting the liability of shipowners, 13 (3) legislation providing for federal interpleader actions, 14 (4) legislation conferring federal jurisdiction over farm mortgages, 15 (5) legislation [*235] governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, 16
and (6) legislation providing for control of prices. 17
12 See French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226. The fed-eral removal provisions, both civil and criminal, 28 U. S. C. ßß 1441-1450, provide that once a copy of the removal petition is filed with the clerk of the state court, the "State court shall pro-ceed no further unless and until the case is re-manded." 28 U. S. C. ß 1446 (e).13 See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578. The Act of 1851, 9 Stat. 635, as amended, provides that once a shipowner has deposited with the court an amount equal to the value of his interest in the ship, "all claims and proceedings against the owner with respect to the matter in question shall cease." 46 U. S. C. ß 185.14 See Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66. The Interpleader Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 416, as currently written provides that in "any civil action of interpleader . . . a district court may . . . enter its order restraining [all claimants] . . . from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or United States court af-fecting the property, instrument or obligation in-volved in the interpleader action." 28 U. S. C. ß 2361.15 See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433. The Frazier-Lemke Farm-Mortgage Act, as amended in 1935, 49 Stat. 944, provides that in situations to which it is applicable a federal court shall "stay all judicial or official proceedings in any court." 11 U. S. C. ß 203 (s) (2) (1940 ed.).16 See Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 248-249. The Federal Habeas Corpus Act provides that a federal court before which a habeas corpus pro-ceeding is pending may "stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State Court . . . for any matter involved in the habeas corpus pro-ceeding." 28 U. S. C. ß 2251.
Page 9
17 Section 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Con-trol Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 33, provided that the Price Administrator could request a federal dis-trict court to enjoin acts that violated or threat-ened to violate the Act. In Porter v. Dicken, 328 U.S. 252, we held that this authority was broad enough to justify an injunction to restrain state court proceedings. Id., at 255. The Emergency Price Control Act was thus considered a congres-sionally authorized exception to the anti-injunc-tion statute. Ibid.; see also Bowles v. Willing-ham, 321 U.S. 503. Section 205 (a) expired in 1947. Act of July 25, 1946, 60 Stat. 664.
In addition to the exceptions to the anti-injunction statute found to be embodied in these various Acts of Congress, the Court recognized other "implied" excep-tions to the blanket prohibition of the anti-injunction statute. One was an "in rem" exception, allowing a fed-eral court to enjoin a state court proceeding in order to protect its jurisdiction of a res over which it had first ac-quired jurisdiction. 18 Another was a "relitigation" excep-tion, permitting a federal court to enjoin relitigation in a state court of issues already decided in federal litigation. 19 Still a third exception, more [***714] recently devel-oped, permits a federal injunction of state [*236] court proceedings [**2159] when the plaintiff in the federal court is the United States itself, or a federal agency as-serting "superior federal interests." 20
18 See, e. g., Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S., at 135-136; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226.19 See, e. g., Toucey, supra, at 137-141; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340; Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356. See generally 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302-2311 (1965).20 Leiter Minerals Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 220; NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138.
In Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, the Court in 1941 issued an opinion casting considerable doubt upon the approach to the anti-injunction statute re-flected in its previous decisions. The Court's opinion ex-pressly disavowed the "relitigation" exception to the statute, and emphasized generally the importance of rec-ognizing the statute's basic directive "of 'hands off' by the federal courts in the use of the injunction to stay litiga-tion in a state court." 314 U.S., at 132. The congres-sional response to Toucey was the enactment in 1948 of the anti-injunction statute in its present form in 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, which, as the Reviser's Note makes evident, served not only to overrule the specific holding of
Toucey, 21 but to restore "the basic law as generally un-derstood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision." 22
21 The Reviser's Note states in part: "The ex-ceptions specifically include the words 'to protect or effectuate its judgments,' for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., . . . 314 U.S. 118 . . . .) A vigorous dissenting opinion [314 U.S. 141] notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts . . . of the United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress in-tended no change." H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A181-182 (1947).22 Ibid.
[***LEdHR7] [7] [***LEdHR8] [8] [***LEdHR9] [9]We proceed, then, upon the understanding that in de-termining whether ß 1983 comes within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, the [*237] criteria to be applied are those reflected in the Court's decisions prior to Toucey. 23 A review of those decisions makes reasonably clear what the relevant crite-ria are. In the first place, it is evident that, [HN6] in or-der to qualify under the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not con-tain an express reference to that statute. As the Court has said, "no prescribed formula is required; an authorization need not expressly refer to ß 2283." Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U.S. 511, 516.Indeed, none of the previously recognized statutory exceptions contains any such reference. 24 Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an excep-tion. Three of the six previously recognized statutory ex-ceptions contain no such authorization. 25 Thirdly, it [***715] is clear that, in order to qualify as an "ex-pressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the fed-eral court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding. This is not [*238] to say that in order to come within the exception [**2160] an Act of Congress must, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be to-tally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti-injunc-tion statute. 26 The test, rather, is whether an Act of Con-gress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforce-able in a federal court of equity, could be given its in-tended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.
Page 10
See Toucey, supra, at 132-134; Kline v. Burke Con-struction Co., 260 U.S. 226; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578, 599; Treinies v. Sun-shine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 78; Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503.
23 Cf. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U.S. 511, 521 (dissenting opinion).24 See nn. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, supra.25 See nn. 12, 13, and 17, supra. The federal courts have found that other Acts of Congress that do not refer to ß 2283 or to injunctions against state court proceedings nonetheless come within the "expressly authorized" language of the anti-injunction statute. See, e. g., Walling v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 59 F.Supp. 348, 351 (WD Ky.) (the Fair Labor Standards Act); Okin v. SEC, 161 F.2d 978, 980 (CA2) (the Public Utility Holding Company Act); Dilworth v. Riner, 343 F.2d 226, 230 (CA5) (the 1964 Civil Rights Act); Studebaker Corp. v. Gittlin, 360 F.2d 692 (CA2) (the Securities and Ex-change Act).26 Cf. Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (CA4).
With these criteria in view, we turn to consideration of 42 U. S. C. ß 1983.
IV
Section 1983 was originally ß 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 17 Stat. 13. It was "modeled" on ß 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, 27 and was enacted for the express purpose of "enforc[ing] the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." 17 Stat. 13. The predeces-sor of ß 1983 was thus an important part of the basic al-teration in our federal system wrought in the Reconstruc-tion era through federal legislation and constitutional amendment. 28 As a result of the [*239] new structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era -- and espe-cially of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was its cen-terpiece -- the role of the Federal Government as a guar-antor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Mc-Neese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 245-249; H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908); J. tenBroek, The Anti-Slavery Ori-gins [***716] of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951). 29
Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citi-zens, offering a uniquely federal remedy against incur-sions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Nation. 30
27 See remarks of Representative Shellabarger, chairman of the House Select Committee which drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871), and Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 545 n. 9.28 In addition to proposing the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, Con-gress, from 1866 to 1875 enacted the following civil rights legislation: Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140; Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13; and Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. 335. In 1875, Congress also passed the general federal-question provision, giving federal courts the power to hear suits aris-ing under Art. III, ß 2, of the Constitution. Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470. This is the prede-cessor of 28 U. S. C. ß 1331.29 See generally Gressman, The Unhappy His-tory of Civil Rights Legislation, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 1323 (1952); Note, 75 Yale L. J. 1007 (1966); F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 65 (1928). As one com-mentator has put it: "That statutory plan [of the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress to enforce it] did supply the means of vindicating those rights [of person and property] through the instrumentalities of the federal government. . . . It did constitute the federal government the pro-tector of the civil rights . . . ." TenBroek, at 185. See also United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801 n. 9; K. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction (1965).30 As Representative Shellabarger stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 "not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all peo-ple where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871). And as Representative Hoar stated: "The principal dan-ger that menaces us to-day is from the effort within the States to deprive considerable numbers of persons of the civil and equal rights which the General Government is endeavoring to secure to them." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 335.
Although, as originally drafted in 1871, ß 1983's predecessor protected rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, the pro-vision included by the Congress in the Revised Statutes of 1874 was enlarged to provide protec-
Page 11
tion for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law as well. Rev. Stat. ß 1979.
[*240] [**2161] It is clear from the legislative de-bates surrounding passage of ß 1983's predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "against State action, . . . whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial." Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 (emphasis sup-plied). Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop de-privations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.
As Representative Lowe stated, the "records of the [state] tribunals are searched in vain for evidence of ef-fective redress [of federally secured rights] . . . . What less than this [the Civil Rights Act of 1871] will afford an adequate remedy? The Federal Government cannot serve a writ of mandamus upon State Executives or upon State courts to compel them to protect the rights, privi-leges and immunities of citizens . . . . The case has arisen . . . when the Federal Government must resort to its own agencies to carry its own authority into execu-tion. Hence this bill throws open the doors of the United States courts to those whose rights under the Constitution are denied or impaired." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374-376 (1871). This view was echoed by Senator Osborn: "If the State courts had proven themselves com-petent to suppress the local disorders, [*241] or to maintain law and order, we should not have been called upon to legislate . . . . We are driven by existing facts to provide for the several states in the South what they have been unable to fully provide for themselves; i. e., the full and complete administration of justice in the courts. And the courts with reference to which we legislate must be the United States [***717] courts." Id., at 653. And Representative Perry concluded: "Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; wit-nesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand and petit ju-ries act as if they might be accomplices . . . . All the ap-paratus and machinery of civil government, all the pro-cesses of justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most dan-gerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to jus-tice." Id., at App. 78. 31
31 Representative Coburn stated: "The United States courts are further above mere local influ-ence than the county courts; their judges can act with more independence, cannot be put under ter-ror, as local judges can; their sympathies are not so nearly identified with those of the vicinage; the jurors are taken from the State, and not the neighborhood; they will be able to rise above
prejudices or bad passions or terror more easily. . . ." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 460 (1871).
See also id., at App. 85 (Rep. Bingham); 321 (Rep. Stoughton); 333-334 (Rep. Hoar); 389 (Rep. Elliot); 394 (Rep. Rainey); 429 (Rep. Beatty); App. 68-69 (Rep. Shellabarger); App. 78 (Rep. Perry); 345 (Sen. Sherman); 505 (Sen. Pratt); 577 (Sen. Carpenter); 651 (Sen. Sumner); 653 (Sen. Osborn); App. 255 (Sen. Wilson). Cf. id., at 697 (Sen. Edmunds).
Those who opposed the Act of 1871 clearly recog-nized that the proponents were extending federal power in an attempt to remedy the state courts' failure to secure federal rights. The debate was not about whether the pre-decessor of ß 1983 extended to actions of state [*242] courts, [**2162] but whether this innovation was neces-sary or desirable. 32
32 See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 361 (Rep. Swann); 385 (Rep. Lewis); 416 (Rep. Biggs); 429 (Rep. McHenry); App. 179 (Rep. Voorhees); 599-600 (Sen. Saulsbury); App. 216 (Sen. Thurman).
This legislative history makes evident that Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship be-tween the States and the Nation with respect to the pro-tection of federally created rights; it was concerned that state instrumentalities could not protect those rights; it realized that state officers might, in fact, be antipathetic to the vindication of those rights; and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts.
V [***LEdHR1B] [1B] [***LEdHR10] [10] [***LEdHR11] [11]Section 1983 [HN7] was thus a product of a vast transformation from the concepts of federalism that had prevailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction statute was enacted. The very purpose of ß 1983 was to interpose the federal courts be-tween the States and the people, as guardians of the peo-ple's federal rights -- to protect the people from unconsti-tutional action under color of state law, "whether that ac-tion be executive, legislative, or judicial." Ex parte Vir-ginia, 100 U.S., at 346.In carrying out that purpose, Con-gress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue in-junctions in ß 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a "suit in equity" as one of the means of redress. And this Court long ago recognized that federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circum-stances be essential to prevent great, immediate, and ir-reparable loss of a person's constitutional rights. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123; cf. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S.
Page 12
33; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479. For these rea-sons we conclude that, under the [*243] criteria estab-lished in our previous decisions construing the anti-in-junction statute, [***718] ß 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the "expressly authorized" exception of that law.
In so concluding, we do not question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding. These principles, in the context of state criminal prosecutions, were canvassed at length last Term in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and its companion cases. They are principles that have been emphasized by this Court many times in the past. Fen-ner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U.S. 45; Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387; Williams v. Miller, 317 U.S. 599; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611. Today we decide only that the District Court in this case was in error in holding that, because of the anti-injunction statute, it was absolutely without power in this ß 1983 action to enjoin a proceed-ing pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or deci-sion of this case.
CONCUR BY: BURGER
CONCUR
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court and add a few words to emphasize what [**2163] the Court is and is not deciding today as I read the opinion. The Court holds [*244] only that 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, which is an absolute bar to injunctions against state court proceed-ings in most suits, does not apply to a suit brought under 42 U. S. C. ß 1983 seeking an injunction of state pro-ceedings. But, as the Court's opinion has noted, it does nothing to "question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a fed-eral court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding." Ante, at 243. In the context of pending state criminal proceedings, we held in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that these principles allow a federal court prop-erly to issue an injunction in only a narrow class of cir-cumstances. We have not yet reached or decided exactly how great a restraint is imposed by these principles on a federal court asked to enjoin state civil proceedings. Therefore, on remand in this case, it seems to me the District Court, before reaching a decision on the merits of appellant's claim, should properly consider whether general notions of equity or principles of federalism, similar to those invoked in Younger, prevent the issuance of an injunction against the state "nuisance abatement" proceedings in the circumstances of this case.
REFERENCES42 Am Jur 2d, Injunctions 235
US L Ed Digest, Courts 691, 700.5
ALR Digests, Courts 313, 314
L Ed Index to Anno (Rev ed), Injunction
ALR Quick Index, Injunctions
Federal Quick Index, Injunctions
Page 13
Copyright 2009 SHEPARD'S(R) - 1744 Citing references
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104 (1972) Restrictions: Unrestricted FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS termsPrint Format: FULLCiting Ref. Signal: Hidden
SHEPARD'S SUMMARY
Unrestricted Shepard's SummaryNo subsequent appellate history. Prior history available.
Citing References:
Questioned Analyses: Questioned (1) Cautionary Analyses: Distinguished (10), Limited (1) Positive Analyses: Followed (53) Neutral Analyses: Concurring Opinion (3), Dissenting Op. (57), Explained (23) Other Sources: Law Reviews (461), Statutes (3), Treatises (39), Annotations (3), Court Documents (369) LexisNexis Headnotes: HN2 (85), HN4 (318), HN5 (129), HN6 (526), HN7 (574) PRIOR HISTORY ( 1 citing reference )
1. Mitchum v. Foster, 315 F. Supp. 1387, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10827 (N.D. Fla. 1970)
Reversed by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104 (1972)
CITING DECISIONS ( 868 citing decisions )
U.S. SUPREME COURT
2. Cited by:Haywood v. Drown, 129 S. Ct. 2108, 173 L. Ed. 2d 920, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3807, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 871 (U.S. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
129 S. Ct. 2108 p.2114173 L. Ed. 2d 920 p.928
3. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 165 L. Ed. 2d 368, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4891, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 332 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
548 U.S. 81 p.108126 S. Ct. 2378 p.2396
Page 14
165 L. Ed. 2d 368 p.389
4. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 119 S. Ct. 1624, 143 L. Ed. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 3631, 67 U.S.L.W. 4345, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 247, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3846, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3019, 99 D.A.R. 4908, 48 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1513, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 21133 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
526 U.S. 687 p.751119 S. Ct. 1624 p.1659143 L. Ed. 2d 882 p.932
5. Cited by:McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 114 S. Ct. 2568, 129 L. Ed. 2d 666, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 5085, 62 U.S.L.W. 4713, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 405, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5054, 94 D.A.R. 9257 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
512 U.S. 849 p.857114 S. Ct. 2568 p.2573129 L. Ed. 2d 666 p.675
6. Cited by:Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4824, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4755, 94 D.A.R. 8793 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
512 U.S. 477 p.501114 S. Ct. 2364 p.2380129 L. Ed. 2d 383 p.403
7. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3640, 59 U.S.L.W. 4789, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4800, 91 D.A.R. 7428 (1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
501 U.S. 722 p.760111 S. Ct. 2546 p.2570115 L. Ed. 2d 640 p.676
8. Cited by:Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 109 S. Ct. 2702, 105 L. Ed. 2d 598, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3130, 57 U.S.L.W. 4858, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39070, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 27 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
491 U.S. 701 p.724109 S. Ct. 2702 p.2716105 L. Ed. 2d 598 p.619
9. Cited by:Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 109 S. Ct. 1998, 104 L. Ed. 2d 582, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2522, 57 U.S.L.W. 4554 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
490 U.S. 536 p.539109 S. Ct. 1998 p.2001104 L. Ed. 2d 582 p.589
Page 15
10. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2867, 56 U.S.L.W. 4689 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:487 U.S. 131 p.158108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2317101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.151
Cited by:487 U.S. 131 p.139108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2307108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2308101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.138101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.140
11. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1515, 55 U.S.L.W. 4457 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:481 U.S. 1 p.19481 U.S. 1 p.20107 S. Ct. 1519 p.1530107 S. Ct. 1519 p.153195 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.2195 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.22
Cited by:481 U.S. 1 p.7107 S. Ct. 1519 p.152495 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.13
12. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 106 S. Ct. 3220, 92 L. Ed. 2d 635, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 142, 54 U.S.L.W. 5084, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36205, 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 177 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
478 U.S. 788 p.80392 L. Ed. 2d 635 p.649
13. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 91 L. Ed. 2d 397, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 66, 54 U.S.L.W. 4820 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
477 U.S. 478 p.51991 L. Ed. 2d 397 p.429
14. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 65, 54 U.S.L.W. 4809 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
477 U.S. 436 p.464106 S. Ct. 2616 p.263291 L. Ed. 2d 364 p.388
Page 16
15. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Murray v. Carrier, 106 S. Ct. 2678 (U.S. 1986)
106 S. Ct. 2678 p.2680
16. Explained by:Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 106 S. Ct. 768, 88 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 51, 54 U.S.L.W. 4144 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
474 U.S. 518 p.526106 S. Ct. 768 p.77388 L. Ed. 2d 877 p.885
17. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S. Ct. 668, 88 L. Ed. 2d 677, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 44, 54 U.S.L.W. 4095 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
474 U.S. 344 p.359106 S. Ct. 668 p.67688 L. Ed. 2d 677 p.690
18. Cited by:Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S. Ct. 1938, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 1, 53 U.S.L.W. 4481 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
471 U.S. 261 p.272105 S. Ct. 1938 p.1944105 S. Ct. 1938 p.1945105 S. Ct. 1938 p.194985 L. Ed. 2d 254 p.26485 L. Ed. 2d 254 p.268
19. Cited by:Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S. Ct. 3457, 82 L. Ed. 2d 746, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 155, 52 U.S.L.W. 5179, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 168 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
468 U.S. 992 p.1012104 S. Ct. 3457 p.346982 L. Ed. 2d 746 p.765
20. Cited by:Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2924, 82 L. Ed. 2d 36, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 128, 52 U.S.L.W. 4916, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34449, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 15 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
468 U.S. 42 p.55104 S. Ct. 2924 p.293282 L. Ed. 2d 36 p.48
21. Cited by:Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 104 S. Ct. 2901, 82 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 126, 52 U.S.L.W. 4905 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
468 U.S. 1 p.10104 S. Ct. 2901 p.2907
Page 17
82 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.11
22. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 75, 52 U.S.L.W. 4525 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:466 U.S. 522 p.545104 S. Ct. 1970 p.198380 L. Ed. 2d 565 p.581
Cited by:466 U.S. 522 p.539104 S. Ct. 1970 p.197980 L. Ed. 2d 565 p.577
23. Cited by:McDonald v. West Branch, 466 U.S. 284, 104 S. Ct. 1799, 80 L. Ed. 2d 302, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 59, 52 U.S.L.W. 4457, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34290, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3646 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
466 U.S. 284 p.290104 S. Ct. 1799 p.180380 L. Ed. 2d 302 p.308
24. Cited by:Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 104 S. Ct. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 23, 52 U.S.L.W. 4151, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34069, 33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1345 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
465 U.S. 75 p.84104 S. Ct. 892 p.89779 L. Ed. 2d 56 p.63
25. Cited by:Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 103 S. Ct. 2368, 76 L. Ed. 2d 595, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 56, 51 U.S.L.W. 4736 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
462 U.S. 306 p.323103 S. Ct. 2368 p.237876 L. Ed. 2d 595 p.610
26. Explained by:Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 152, 51 U.S.L.W. 4424 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
461 U.S. 95 p.112103 S. Ct. 1660 p.167075 L. Ed. 2d 675 p.691
27. Cited by:Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 133, 50 U.S.L.W. 4731, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32821, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 12 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Page 18
457 U.S. 496 p.503102 S. Ct. 2557 p.256173 L. Ed. 2d 172 p.179
28. Cited by:Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 S. Ct. 177, 70 L. Ed. 2d 271, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 6, 50 U.S.L.W. 4017 (1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
454 U.S. 100 p.124102 S. Ct. 177 p.19070 L. Ed. 2d 271 p.288
29. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 156, 49 U.S.L.W. 4015 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:449 U.S. 90 p.111101 S. Ct. 411 p.42366 L. Ed. 2d 308 p.324
Cited by:449 U.S. 90 p.99101 S. Ct. 411 p.41766 L. Ed. 2d 308 p.316
30. Distinguished by:County of Imperial v. Munoz, 449 U.S. 54, 101 S. Ct. 289, 66 L. Ed. 2d 258, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 154 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
449 U.S. 54 p.60101 S. Ct. 289 p.29366 L. Ed. 2d 258 p.265
31. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 65 L. Ed. 2d 555, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 51 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:448 U.S. 1 p.21100 S. Ct. 2502 p.2512100 S. Ct. 2502 p.251365 L. Ed. 2d 555 p.570
Cited by:448 U.S. 1 p.5100 S. Ct. 2502 p.250465 L. Ed. 2d 555 p.559
32. Cited by:Supreme Court v. Consumers Union of United States, 446 U.S. 719, 100 S. Ct. 1967, 64 L. Ed. 2d 641, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 108 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
446 U.S. 719 p.735100 S. Ct. 1967 p.1976
Page 19
64 L. Ed. 2d 641 p.656
33. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S. Ct. 1468, 64 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 120 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:446 U.S. 14 p.50100 S. Ct. 1468 p.148864 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.44
Cited by:446 U.S. 14 p.21100 S. Ct. 1468 p.147364 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.25
34. Cited by:Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 10 (1979)
443 U.S. 307 p.33699 S. Ct. 2781 p.279861 L. Ed. 2d 560 p.585
35. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 60 L. Ed. 2d 994, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 110 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:442 U.S. 415 p.43799 S. Ct. 2371 p.238460 L. Ed. 2d 994 p.1012
Cited by:442 U.S. 415 p.43399 S. Ct. 2371 p.238260 L. Ed. 2d 994 p.1009
36. Cited by:Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 99 S. Ct. 1905, 60 L. Ed. 2d 508, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 101 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
441 U.S. 600 p.66099 S. Ct. 1905 p.193860 L. Ed. 2d 508 p.549
37. Cited by:Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 67 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
440 U.S. 332 p.35499 S. Ct. 1139 p.115299 S. Ct. 1139 p.115359 L. Ed. 2d 358 p.375
Page 20
38. Cited by:Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 1991, 56 L. Ed. 2d 554, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 31 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
436 U.S. 584 p.59198 S. Ct. 1991 p.199598 S. Ct. 1991 p.199756 L. Ed. 2d 554 p.56156 L. Ed. 2d 554 p.563
39. Cited by:Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 69 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
435 U.S. 247 p.25398 S. Ct. 1042 p.104755 L. Ed. 2d 252 p.258
40. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 434 U.S. 12, 98 S. Ct. 76, 54 L. Ed. 2d 199, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 152 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
434 U.S. 12 p.2098 S. Ct. 76 p.8054 L. Ed. 2d 199 p.205
41. Explained by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 97 S. Ct. 2881, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1009, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 25, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P61497 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Explained by:433 U.S. 623 p.630433 U.S. 623 p.64397 S. Ct. 2881 p.288897 S. Ct. 2881 p.289353 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.101753 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.101853 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.1024
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:433 U.S. 623 p.65597 S. Ct. 2881 p.290053 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.1032
Cited by:97 S. Ct. 2881 p.288797 S. Ct. 2881 p.289153 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.1016
42. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 53 L. Ed. 2d 594, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 135 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
433 U.S. 72 p.10697 S. Ct. 2497 p.251653 L. Ed. 2d 594 p.620
Page 21
43. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S. Ct. 1911, 52 L. Ed. 2d 486, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 96 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:431 U.S. 434 p.45697 S. Ct. 1911 p.192452 L. Ed. 2d 486 p.503
Cited by:431 U.S. 434 p.442431 U.S. 434 p.44597 S. Ct. 1911 p.191752 L. Ed. 2d 486 p.494
44. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 77, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 296 (1977)
430 U.S. 762 p.77897 S. Ct. 1459 p.146952 L. Ed. 2d 31 p.44
45. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 97 S. Ct. 1211, 51 L. Ed. 2d 376, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 61 (1977)
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:430 U.S. 327 p.34297 S. Ct. 1211 p.122097 S. Ct. 1211 p.122151 L. Ed. 2d 376 p.38851 L. Ed. 2d 376 p.389
Cited by:430 U.S. 327 p.33997 S. Ct. 1211 p.121951 L. Ed. 2d 376 p.387
46. Cited by:Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed. 2d 614, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 160, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10999, 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1040, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1586 (1976)
427 U.S. 445 p.45596 S. Ct. 2666 p.267149 L. Ed. 2d 614 p.621
47. Cited by:Bateman v. Arizona, 429 U.S. 1302, 97 S. Ct. 1, 50 L. Ed. 2d 32, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3425 (1976)
429 U.S. 1302 p.130497 S. Ct. 1 p.250 L. Ed. 2d 32 p.35
Page 22
48. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 2413, 49 L. Ed. 2d 276, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 188, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1 (1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
427 U.S. 1 p.3396 S. Ct. 2413 p.242949 L. Ed. 2d 276 p.297
49. Cited by:Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 42 (1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
423 U.S. 362 p.37996 S. Ct. 598 p.60846 L. Ed. 2d 561 p.574
50. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 45 L. Ed. 2d 223, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 7 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
422 U.S. 332 p.35695 S. Ct. 2281 p.229545 L. Ed. 2d 223 p.243
51. Cited by:Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 95 S. Ct. 1524, 44 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 57 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
421 U.S. 117 p.12495 S. Ct. 1524 p.153144 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.24
52. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 43 L. Ed. 2d 482, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 46 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:420 U.S. 592 p.61495 S. Ct. 1200 p.121343 L. Ed. 2d 482 p.498
Cited by:420 U.S. 592 p.59495 S. Ct. 1200 p.120343 L. Ed. 2d 482 p.487
53. Cited by:Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 95 S. Ct. 289, 42 L. Ed. 2d 249, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 157 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
419 U.S. 90 p.9595 S. Ct. 289 p.29342 L. Ed. 2d 249 p.255
54. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Page 23
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 41 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Followed by:414 U.S. 488 p.49994 S. Ct. 669 p.67838 L. Ed. 2d 674 p.685
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:414 U.S. 488 p.51094 S. Ct. 669 p.68338 L. Ed. 2d 674 p.691
55. Cited by:Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, 413 U.S. 904, 93 S. Ct. 3027, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1015, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 1936 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
413 U.S. 904 p.90437 L. Ed. 2d 1015 p.1015
56. Cited by:Thompson v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 413 U.S. 903, 93 S. Ct. 3027, 93 S. Ct. 3028, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1014, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 1935 (1973)
57. Followed by:
Shoemaker v. Dwyer, 412 U.S. 902, 93 S. Ct. 2297, 36 L. Ed. 2d 967, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2331 (1973)36 L. Ed. 2d 967 p.967
58. Followed by:Joiner v. Dallas, 412 U.S. 902, 93 S. Ct. 2286, 36 L. Ed. 2d 967, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2333 (1973)
412 U.S. 902 p.90293 S. Ct. 2286 p.2286
59. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 93 S. Ct. 1785, 36 L. Ed. 2d 596, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 69, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1323 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
411 U.S. 693 p.72393 S. Ct. 1785 p.180393 S. Ct. 1785 p.180436 L. Ed. 2d 596 p.61736 L. Ed. 2d 596 p.618
60. Cited by:Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93 S. Ct. 1689, 36 L. Ed. 2d 488, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 74 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
411 U.S. 564 p.57393 S. Ct. 1689 p.169536 L. Ed. 2d 488 p.496
61. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 72 (1973)
Page 24
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7411 U.S. 475 p.51693 S. Ct. 1827 p.185036 L. Ed. 2d 439 p.465
62. Explained by, Cited by:Cousins v. Wigoda, 409 U.S. 1201, 92 S. Ct. 2610, 34 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 1868 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Explained by:409 U.S. 1201 p.120592 S. Ct. 2610 p.261434 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.20
Cited by:34 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.19
63. Cited by:Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S. Ct. 1113, 31 L. Ed. 2d 424, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 153 (1972)
405 U.S. 538 p.56192 S. Ct. 1113 p.112631 L. Ed. 2d 424 p.440
1ST CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
64. Cited by:Colon-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Bonilla, 94 Fed. Appx. 847, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7985 (1st Cir. P.R. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
94 Fed. Appx. 847 p.848
65. Cited by:Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20799, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1290 (1st Cir. Mass. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
189 F.3d 52 p.68
66. Distinguished by, Followed by:Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 710 (1st Cir. P.R. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Distinguished by:988 F.2d 252 p.262
Followed by:988 F.2d 252 p.261
67. Cited by:In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15947, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P74130, 25 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 113 (1st Cir. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
938 F.2d 1467 p.1478
Page 25
68. Cited by:De Cosme v. Sea Containers, Ltd., 874 F.2d 66, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6415 (1st Cir. P.R. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
874 F.2d 66 p.68
69. Cited by:Garcia v. Bauza-Salas, 862 F.2d 905, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16491 (1st Cir. P.R. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
862 F.2d 905 p.907862 F.2d 905 p.909
70. Cited by:De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F.2d 1187, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25459 (1st Cir. P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
792 F.2d 1187 p.1188
71. Cited by:First Federal Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Greenwald, 591 F.2d 417, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17103 (1st Cir. Mass. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
591 F.2d 417 p.424
72. Cited by:Construction Aggregates Corp. v. Rivera de Vicenty, 573 F.2d 86, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12173 (1st Cir. P.R. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
573 F.2d 86 p.94
73. Cited by:Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970 (1st Cir. N.H. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
498 F.2d 1261 p.1264
1ST CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
74. Cited by:Kennedy v. Town of Billerica, 594 F. Supp. 2d 117, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6442 (D. Mass. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
594 F. Supp. 2d 117 p.124
75. Cited by:Vargas-Torres v. Toledo-Davila, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35655 (D.P.R. Apr. 30, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35655
76. Followed by, Cited by:Safe Haven Sober Houses, LLC v. City of Boston, 517 F. Supp. 2d 557, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74129 (D. Mass. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Page 26
Followed by:517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.568
Cited by:517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.562
77. Followed by:Rigby v. Damant, 486 F. Supp. 2d 222, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35365 (D. Mass. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
486 F. Supp. 2d 222 p.227
78. Cited by:Concepcion v. Municipality of Gurabo, 558 F. Supp. 2d 149, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97803 (D.P.R. 2007)
558 F. Supp. 2d 149 p.162
79. Cited by:Marcello v. State, 489 F. Supp. 2d 67, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24828 (D. Me. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
489 F. Supp. 2d 67 p.69
80. Cited by:Wade v. Brady, 460 F. Supp. 2d 226, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78605 (D. Mass. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
460 F. Supp. 2d 226 p.239
81. Cited by:Hernandez v. SmithKline Beecham Pharm., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72846 (D.P.R. June 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72846
82. Cited by:Robles-Ortiz v. Toledo, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37903 (D.P.R. Sept. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37903
83. Cited by:LaCedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Det. Facility, 334 F. Supp. 2d 114, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18182 (D.R.I. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
334 F. Supp. 2d 114 p.139
84. Cited by:United States v. Weeks, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20372 (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20372
85. Cited by:Rivera Perez v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 193 F.R.D. 43, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7355 (D.P.R. 2000)
Page 27
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7193 F.R.D. 43 p.45
86. Cited by:George Lussier Enters. v. Subaru of New Eng., Inc., 2000 DNH 92, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5532 (D.N.H. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5532
87. Cited by:Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 946 F. Supp. 1067, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18438 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
946 F. Supp. 1067 p.1075
88. Cited by:South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. City of Boston, 875 F. Supp. 891, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 709 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
875 F. Supp. 891 p.907
89. Cited by:P.R.F., Inc. v. Philips Credit Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19696 (D.P.R. Dec. 21, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
90. Cited by:
SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica, 764 F. Supp. 7, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7243 (D.P.R. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
764 F. Supp. 7 p.8
91. Cited by:United States v. Puerto Rico, 764 F. Supp. 220, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6779 (D.P.R. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6
764 F. Supp. 220 p.227
92. Cited by:H. P. Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources, 764 F. Supp. 662, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6469 (D. Me. 1991)
764 F. Supp. 662 p.677
93. Cited by:H. P. Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources, 764 F. Supp. 662, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6580 (D. Me. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
94. Followed by, Cited by:
Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico for Dist. of Arecibo, 752 F. Supp. 1152, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16003 (D.P.R. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Followed by:752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1169752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1170
Page 28
Cited by:752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1171
95. Cited by:Lancellotti v. Fay, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15953 (D.R.I. Nov. 28, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
96. Cited by:
West v. Bristol, 712 F. Supp. 269, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4850 (D.R.I. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7712 F. Supp. 269 p.274
97. Cited by:Paris v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, 684 F. Supp. 764, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4389 (D.P.R. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
684 F. Supp. 764 p.767684 F. Supp. 764 p.768
98. Cited by:Gonzalez Martinez v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto Rico, 644 F. Supp. 364, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19708 (D.P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
644 F. Supp. 364 p.366
99. Followed by:Kercado Melendez v. Aponte Roque, 641 F. Supp. 1326 (D.P.R. 1986)
641 F. Supp. 1326 p.1329
100. Cited by:Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 608 F. Supp. 800, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22682 (D. Mass. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
608 F. Supp. 800 p.805
101. Cited by:Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 546 F. Supp. 1251, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15715 (D.P.R. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
546 F. Supp. 1251 p.1266
102. Cited by:Vista Resources, Inc. v. Connolly, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11210, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98627 (D. Mass. Mar. 16, 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
103. Cited by:
Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee, 435 F. Supp. 1063, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14939, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7871, 15 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 644, 46 A.L.R. Fed. 304 (D. Me. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
435 F. Supp. 1063 p.1083435 F. Supp. 1063 p.1084
104. Cited by:
Page 29
Members of Jamestown School Committee v. Schmidt, 427 F. Supp. 1338, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17022 (D.R.I. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
427 F. Supp. 1338 p.1344
105. Cited by:Ferrer Delgado v. Sylvia De Jesus, 440 F. Supp. 979, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12436 (D.P.R. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
440 F. Supp. 979 p.982
106. Cited by:Tapia-Tapia v. Division of Appeals of Superior Court, 429 F. Supp. 555, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15878 (D.P.R. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
429 F. Supp. 555 p.559
107. Cited by:Durkin v. Snow, 403 F. Supp. 18, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11538 (D.N.H. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
403 F. Supp. 18 p.20
108. Cited by:Oquendo v. Ortiz, 372 F. Supp. 79, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11692 (D.P.R. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
372 F. Supp. 79 p.81
109. Cited by:Carver v. Hooker, 369 F. Supp. 204, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10851 (D.N.H. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
369 F. Supp. 204 p.217
110. Cited by:Federacion de Cooperativas de Credito v. Burgos, 366 F. Supp. 1321, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11912 (D.P.R. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
366 F. Supp. 1321 p.1326
111. Cited by:Trapper Brown Constr. Co. v. Electromech, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 105, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13647 (D.N.H. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
358 F. Supp. 105 p.107
112. Followed by:Glenwal Development Corp. v. Schmidt, 356 F. Supp. 67, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11109 (D.P.R. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
356 F. Supp. 67 p.71
113. Followed by:Schneider v. Margossian, 349 F. Supp. 741, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11887, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan)
Page 30
854, 18 A.L.R. Fed. 215 (D. Mass. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6349 F. Supp. 741 p.743
2ND CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
114. Cited by:Sterngass v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n, 260 Fed. Appx. 395, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1042 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008)
260 Fed. Appx. 395 p.395
115. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11187 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2006)
449 F.3d 305 p.358
116. Cited by:Bracey v. Bd. of Educ., 368 F.3d 108, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 761 (2d Cir. Conn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
368 F.3d 108 p.115
117. Cited by:Nussle v. Willette, 224 F.3d 95, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21431 (2d Cir. Conn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
224 F.3d 95 p.98
118. Cited by:Ivani Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 179 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
103 F.3d 257 p.262
119. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Yonkers Racing Corp. v. Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
858 F.2d 855 p.875
120. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22524 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
784 F.2d 1133 p.1140784 F.2d 1133 p.1144
121. Cited by:Giulini v. Blessing, 654 F.2d 189, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11754 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
654 F.2d 189 p.192
122. Cited by:
Page 31
Heimbach v. Lyons, 597 F.2d 344, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15126 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
597 F.2d 344 p.347
123. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Turpin v. Mailet, 579 F.2d 152, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 10868 (2d Cir. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
579 F.2d 152 p.174
124. Cited by:Dacey v. Dorsey, 568 F.2d 275, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13072 (2d Cir. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
568 F.2d 275 p.277
125. Cited by:Marshall v. Chase Manhattan Bank (Nat'l Asso.), 558 F.2d 680, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12333, 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1796 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
558 F.2d 680 p.683
126. Cited by:Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 519 F.2d 559, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14411, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10270, 10 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 956 (2d Cir. Conn. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
519 F.2d 559 p.570
127. Cited by:McCune v. Frank, 521 F.2d 1152, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13659, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10317 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
521 F.2d 1152 p.1156
128. Cited by:Bedrosian v. Mintz, 518 F.2d 396, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14084 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
518 F.2d 396 p.399
129. Cited by:J. v. Bar Asso. of Erie County, 515 F.2d 435, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15325 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
515 F.2d 435 p.437
130. Cited by:Wells v. Malloy, 510 F.2d 74, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16441 (2d Cir. Vt. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
510 F.2d 74 p.76
131. Cited by:Gajon Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly, 508 F.2d 1317, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974)
Page 32
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7508 F.2d 1317 p.1319
132. Cited by:Blouin v. Dembitz, 489 F.2d 488, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6479 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
489 F.2d 488 p.490489 F.2d 488 p.491
133. Cited by:Citizens for a Better Environment, Inc. v. Nassau County, 488 F.2d 1353, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7014 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
488 F.2d 1353 p.1359
134. Cited by:Boraas v. Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11422 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
476 F.2d 806 p.811
135. Cited by:Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7624 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
467 F.2d 226 p.236
2ND CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
136. Cited by:Glatzer v. Barone, 614 F. Supp. 2d 450, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37099 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
614 F. Supp. 2d 450 p.457
137. Cited by:Sierra v. City of New York, 528 F. Supp. 2d 465, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
528 F. Supp. 2d 465 p.468
138. Cited by:Morpurgo v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98835 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98835
139. Cited by:Murawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72749 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
514 F. Supp. 2d 577 p.583
Page 33
140. Cited by:Baumgarten v. County of Suffolk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39229 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39229
141. Cited by:Bess v. Spitzer, 459 F. Supp. 2d 191, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83966 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
459 F. Supp. 2d 191 p.201
142. Cited by:Armstrong v. Real Estate Int'l, Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7630 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7630
143. Cited by:In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18693 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18693
144. Cited by:Levich v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist., 361 F. Supp. 2d 151, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26101 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
361 F. Supp. 2d 151 p.162
145. Cited by:Mussmann v. Scalera, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17694 (N.D.N.Y Oct. 6, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17694
146. Cited by:Harris v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 202 F. Supp. 2d 143, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7179 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
202 F. Supp. 2d 143 p.153
147. Cited by:Pathways, Inc. v. Dunne, 172 F. Supp. 2d 357, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17345 (D. Conn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
172 F. Supp. 2d 357 p.362
148. Cited by:Pappas v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d 433, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15590 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
118 F. Supp. 2d 433 p.439
149. Followed by:
Page 34
Arby's Inc. v. B & R Mgmt. & Leasing Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13378 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 31, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13378
150. Cited by:Bridgeport Machs, Inc. v. Alamo Iron Works, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 209, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19156 (D. Conn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
76 F. Supp. 2d 209 p.212
151. Cited by:Xuong Trieu v. Urbach, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10172 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10172
152. Cited by:Ali v. New York City Transit Auth., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19351 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19351
153. Cited by:Burks v. Dence, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12707 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 20, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
154. Cited by:
Miller v. Silbermann, 951 F. Supp. 485, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
951 F. Supp. 485 p.494
155. Cited by:Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16120 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
156. Cited by:
Davidson v. Garry, 956 F. Supp. 265, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20382 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
956 F. Supp. 265 p.268
157. Cited by:Smith v. Gribetz, 887 F. Supp. 583, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7547 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
887 F. Supp. 583 p.586
158. Cited by:Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F. Supp. 99, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7794 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
880 F. Supp. 99 p.130
Page 35
159. Cited by:Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co. v. Renstrom, 831 F. Supp. 1088, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13420 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
831 F. Supp. 1088 p.1089
160. Cited by:Ohta v. Muraski, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693 (D. Conn. Aug. 19, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
161. Cited by:
Oxford House v. City of Albany, 819 F. Supp. 1168, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5061, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 893 (N.D.N.Y 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
819 F. Supp. 1168 p.1172
162. Cited by:Carr v. Axelrod, 798 F. Supp. 168, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10582 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
798 F. Supp. 168 p.175
163. Cited by:C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, 770 F. Supp. 848, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11187, 1991-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69591 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
770 F. Supp. 848 p.853
164. Cited by:In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 134 F.R.D. 32, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18126 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
134 F.R.D. 32 p.38
165. Cited by:In re Joint Eastern & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 120 B.R. 648, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17032, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 176 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
120 B.R. 648 p.657
166. Cited by:Medeiros v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10393 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
167. Cited by:
Rosendale v. Lankenau Kovner & Bickford, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14491 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
168. Cited by:
McNeill v. New York City Housing Authority, 719 F. Supp. 233, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9585 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
719 F. Supp. 233 p.256
169. Cited by:First City Federal Sav. Bank v. Dennis, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5212 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 1989) LexisNexis
Page 36
Headnotes HN4
170. Cited by:Burmah Oil Tankers, Ltd. v. Trisun Tankers, Ltd., 687 F. Supp. 897, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5622 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
687 F. Supp. 897 p.899
171. Cited by:Okure v. Owens, 625 F. Supp. 1568, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30154 (N.D.N.Y 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7
625 F. Supp. 1568 p.1571
172. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 626 F. Supp. 250, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30601 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
626 F. Supp. 250 p.259
173. Cited by:Wilson v. Uttaro, 623 F. Supp. 1158, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12759 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
623 F. Supp. 1158 p.1160
174. Cited by:Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster, P.C. v. Dearie, 613 F. Supp. 278, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
613 F. Supp. 278 p.280
175. Cited by:MAI BASIC FOUR, INC. v. 820 SECOND AVE. ASSOCS., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P66684 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
176. Cited by:
Breads v. Ellis, 607 F. Supp. 1420, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20019 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
607 F. Supp. 1420 p.1421
177. Cited by:Port Chester v. Port Chester Yacht Club, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 663, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
598 F. Supp. 663 p.666
178. Cited by:Schiavone Constr. Co. v. New York City Transit Authority, 593 F. Supp. 1257, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23339 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
593 F. Supp. 1257 p.1258
179. Cited by:
Page 37
Trans World Corp. v. Odyssey Partners, 561 F. Supp. 1311, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18344, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99136 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
561 F. Supp. 1311 p.1314
180. Followed by:Ambiance, Inc. v. Commodore General Ins. Co., 553 F. Supp. 285, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9856 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
553 F. Supp. 285 p.288
181. Cited by:Companion Life Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 547 F. Supp. 836, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15021 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
547 F. Supp. 836 p.838
182. Cited by:Cayuga Indian Nation v. Fox, 544 F. Supp. 542, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13748 (N.D.N.Y 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
544 F. Supp. 542 p.550
183. Cited by:America's Best Family Showplace Corp. v. New York Dep't of Bldgs., 530 F. Supp. 607, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11554 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
530 F. Supp. 607 p.611
184. Cited by:Howard v. Koch, 575 F. Supp. 1299, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17607 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
575 F. Supp. 1299 p.1303
185. Cited by:GARRETT v. CERBONE, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15683 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
186. Cited by:
SAMAD ALI v. ALTMAN, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14607 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
187. Cited by:
Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, etc., 515 F. Supp. 456, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12476 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
515 F. Supp. 456 p.459
188. Cited by:Angelilli v. Murphy, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9761 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
189. Explained by:
United Transp. Union v. Long Island Rail Road & Metropolitan Transp. Asso., 509 F. Supp. 1300, 1980
Page 38
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9122, 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3069 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
509 F. Supp. 1300 p.1307
190. Cited by:HURLEY v. WARD, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8630 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
191. Cited by:
Wiesenfeld v. New York, 474 F. Supp. 1141, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11177 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
474 F. Supp. 1141 p.1144
192. Cited by:Brennick v. Hynes, 471 F. Supp. 863, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12537 (N.D.N.Y 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
471 F. Supp. 863 p.867
193. Cited by:BOARD OF EDUC. OF NEW YORK v. CALIFANO, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17757 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
194. Cited by:
Cartledge v. Miller, 457 F. Supp. 1146, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15717 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
457 F. Supp. 1146 p.1151457 F. Supp. 1146 p.1152
195. Cited by:City Partners, Ltd. v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 454 F. Supp. 1269, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16610 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
454 F. Supp. 1269 p.1273
196. Cited by:Aristocrat Health Club, Inc. v. Chaucer, 451 F. Supp. 210, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17872 (D. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
451 F. Supp. 210 p.214
197. Distinguished by:Williams v. Sclafani, 444 F. Supp. 906, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19979 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
444 F. Supp. 906 p.917
198. Cited by:Black Jack Distributors, Inc. v. Beame, 433 F. Supp. 1297, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15312, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1641 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1303433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1304
Page 39
199. Cited by:Maltais v. United States, 439 F. Supp. 540, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13394, 25 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 923 (N.D.N.Y 1977)
439 F. Supp. 540 p.547
200. Cited by:NLRB v. New York, 436 F. Supp. 335, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14366, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2081, 82 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10131 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
436 F. Supp. 335 p.339
201. Cited by:NLRB v. Comm. of Interns & Residents, 426 F. Supp. 438, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17604, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2739, 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P13060 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
426 F. Supp. 438 p.445
202. Cited by:Briere v. Agway, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 654, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17962 (D. Vt. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
425 F. Supp. 654 p.657
203. Cited by:GIGANTE v. KEENAN, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
204. Explained by:
Gras v. Stevens, 415 F. Supp. 1148, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15224 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
415 F. Supp. 1148 p.1154
205. Cited by:New Haven Tenants' Representative Council, Inc. v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 390 F. Supp. 831, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14004 (D. Conn. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
390 F. Supp. 831 p.832
206. Cited by:Vail v. Quinlan, 387 F. Supp. 630, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14384 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
387 F. Supp. 630 p.637
207. Cited by:Schero v. Merrola, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7777, 1974 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75166 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7
208. Cited by:
Abbit v. Bernier, 387 F. Supp. 57, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11419 (D. Conn. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
387 F. Supp. 57 p.59
Page 40
209. Cited by:Hartford Consumer Activists Asso. v. Hausman, 381 F. Supp. 1275, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7060 (D. Conn. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
381 F. Supp. 1275 p.1280
210. Cited by:Sugar v. Curtis Circulation Co., 377 F. Supp. 1055, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
377 F. Supp. 1055 p.1059
211. Cited by:Wallace v. McDonald, 369 F. Supp. 180, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14759 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
369 F. Supp. 180 p.186369 F. Supp. 180 p.187
212. Cited by:Fitzgerald v. Cawley, 368 F. Supp. 677, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10688 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
368 F. Supp. 677 p.680
213. Cited by:United States v. New Haven, 367 F. Supp. 1338, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14808 (D. Conn. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
367 F. Supp. 1338 p.1341
214. Cited by:Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, 364 F. Supp. 478, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12004, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P8943 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
364 F. Supp. 478 p.482
215. Cited by:Thistlethwaite v. New York, 362 F. Supp. 88, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12551 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
362 F. Supp. 88 p.93
216. Cited by:Horodner v. Cahn, 360 F. Supp. 602, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13157 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
360 F. Supp. 602 p.605
217. Cited by:Caramico v. Romney, 390 F. Supp. 210, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11271 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
390 F. Supp. 210 p.215
Page 41
218. Followed by:Boraas v. Belle Terre, 367 F. Supp. 136, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11903 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
367 F. Supp. 136 p.140367 F. Supp. 136 p.141
219. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Silverman v. Browning, 359 F. Supp. 173, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10697 (D. Conn. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:359 F. Supp. 173 p.181
Cited by:359 F. Supp. 173 p.176
220. Cited by:Turner v. Baxley, 354 F. Supp. 963, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10492 (D. Vt. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
354 F. Supp. 963 p.970
221. Cited by:Russell v. Monroe, 351 F. Supp. 115, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11214 (W.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
351 F. Supp. 115 p.117
222. Followed by:1487 Amusement Corp. v. Redlich, 350 F. Supp. 822, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11268 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
350 F. Supp. 822 p.827
223. Cited by:Ajello v. Schaffer, 349 F. Supp. 1168, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11897 (D. Conn. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7
349 F. Supp. 1168 p.1171349 F. Supp. 1168 p.1172
224. Distinguished by:Halstead, Fauss & Potter, Inc. v. Murphy, 348 F. Supp. 380, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12699 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)
348 F. Supp. 380 p.382
3RD CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
225. Followed by:Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed. Appx. 155, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16235 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
287 Fed. Appx. 155 p.158
Page 42
226. Cited by:McLaughlin v. Fisher, 277 Fed. Appx. 207, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9682, 184 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2342 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
277 Fed. Appx. 207 p.218
227. Cited by:In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 369 F.3d 293, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10231, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17005 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
369 F.3d 293 p.306
228. Cited by:Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 26217 (3d Cir. N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
159 F.3d 120 p.125
229. Cited by:In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 134 F.3d 133, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 791 (3d Cir. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
134 F.3d 133 p.144
230. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20308 (3d Cir. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
32 F.3d 785 p.802
231. Followed by, Cited by:1975 Salaried Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15095, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1971, 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10268 (3d Cir. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Followed by:968 F.2d 401 p.407968 F.2d 401 p.408
Cited by:968 F.2d 401 p.409
232. Cited by:Ivy Club v. Edwards, 943 F.2d 270, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19215 (3d Cir. N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
943 F.2d 270 p.277943 F.2d 270 p.278
233. Cited by:United States Steel Corp. Plan for Employee Ins. Ben. v. Musisko, 885 F.2d 1170, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14123, 11 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1719 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
885 F.2d 1170 p.1173
Page 43
885 F.2d 1170 p.1176
234. Cited by:Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13850 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
885 F.2d 101 p.109
235. Cited by:Knoll v. Springfield Township Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 137, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31001, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P33309, 30 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1383, 37 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 814 (3d Cir. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
699 F.2d 137 p.142
236. Cited by:In re Davis, 691 F.2d 176, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24637, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1048, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P68885, 7 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 861 (3d Cir. Del. 1982)
691 F.2d 176 p.178
237. Cited by:In re Davis (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
238. Cited by:
Kennecott Corp. v. Smith, 637 F.2d 181, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11332, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97731 (3d Cir. N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
637 F.2d 181 p.186
239. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Johnson v. Kelly, 583 F.2d 1242, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8715 (3d Cir. Pa. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:583 F.2d 1242 p.1253
Cited by:583 F.2d 1242 p.1250
240. Followed by, Cited by:New Jersey Education Asso. v. Burke, 579 F.2d 764, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11364 (3d Cir. N.J. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Followed by:579 F.2d 764 p.771
Cited by:579 F.2d 764 p.767579 F.2d 764 p.770
241. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11846 (3d Cir. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
Page 44
564 F.2d 1018 p.1042
242. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:New Jersey v. Chesimard, 555 F.2d 63, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14385 (3d Cir. N.J. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
555 F.2d 63 p.75
243. Cited by:In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation, 521 F.2d 775, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13311, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 374 (3d Cir. Pa. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
521 F.2d 775 p.781
244. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5401 (3d Cir. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
507 F.2d 119 p.130
245. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Helfant v. Kugler, 500 F.2d 1188, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7751 (3d Cir. N.J. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:500 F.2d 1188 p.1199
Cited by:500 F.2d 1188 p.1195
246. Cited by:Jennings v. Boenning & Co., 482 F.2d 1128, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8760, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94072 (3d Cir. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
482 F.2d 1128 p.1130
247. Cited by:Smith v. Spina, 477 F.2d 1140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10321 (3d Cir. N.J. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
477 F.2d 1140 p.1144
248. Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Conover v. Montemuro, 477 F.2d 1073, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6182 (3d Cir. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Explained by:477 F.2d 1073 p.1077477 F.2d 1073 p.1080
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:477 F.2d 1073 p.1083477 F.2d 1073 p.1096
Cited by:477 F.2d 1073 p.1079
Page 45
249. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Mitchell v. Fiore, 470 F.2d 1149, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6321, 69 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P32811, 73 Labor Relations N.L.R.B. (P-H) P14412, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1034 (3d Cir. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
470 F.2d 1149 p.1158
3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
250. Cited by:Cradle of Liberty Council, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107932 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107932
251. Cited by:Dye v. Fed. Home Loans Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108654 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108654
252. Followed by:Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59000 (D. Del. July 9, 2009)
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59000
253. Followed by:Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53214 (D. Del. June 24, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53214
254. Cited by:Davis Int'l, LLC v. New Start Group Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40895 (D. Del. May 13, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40895
255. Cited by:Miller v. Skumanick, 605 F. Supp. 2d 634, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27275 (M.D. Pa. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
605 F. Supp. 2d 634 p.641
256. Cited by:Binsack v. Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney's Office, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777
257. Cited by:Leer Elec., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103543 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Page 46
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103543
258. Followed by:Harris v. Hershey Med. Ctr., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102514 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102514
259. Followed by:Williams v. Gov't of the V.I., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99648, 50 V.I. 852 (2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
50 V.I. 852 p.860
260. Cited by:J.T.M. v. Richman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110484 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110484
261. Cited by:Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88544 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88544
262. Cited by:Shipley v. New Castle County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76156 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76156
263. Followed by:Joyce v. City of Sea Isle City, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25880 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2008)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25880
264. Cited by:Zaklama v. City of Bayonne, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1194 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1194
265. Cited by:Valle v. Etemad, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3778 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3778
266. Cited by:Huntley v. City of Johnstown, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5686 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5686
267. Cited by:
Page 47
In re J.E. Brenneman Co., 277 F. Supp. 2d 518, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12196, 2003 A.M.C. 1759 (E.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
277 F. Supp. 2d 518 p.521
268. Cited by:Lui v. Comm'n on Adult Entm't Establishments, 213 F.R.D. 166, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3459 (D. Del. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
213 F.R.D. 166 p.171
269. Cited by:Daniel Boone Area Sch. Dist. v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 414, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2360 (W.D. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
187 F. Supp. 2d 414 p.417187 F. Supp. 2d 414 p.418
270. Cited by:Concepcion v. Morton, 125 F. Supp. 2d 111, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20042 (D.N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
125 F. Supp. 2d 111 p.120
271. Cited by:Carlino v. Gloucester City High Sch., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15949 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
57 F. Supp. 2d 1 p.9
272. Cited by:Alan A. v. Verniero, 970 F. Supp. 1153, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10433 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
970 F. Supp. 1153 p.1169
273. Cited by:Government Guar. Fund of Fin. v. Hyatt Corp., 955 F. Supp. 441, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1123, 35 V.I. 356 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
955 F. Supp. 441 p.465
274. Cited by:In re GMC Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17510 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
275. Cited by:
Bledsoe v. Fulton Bank, 940 F. Supp. 804, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14322 (E.D. Pa. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
940 F. Supp. 804 p.807940 F. Supp. 804 p.809
276. Cited by:McKie v. Brod, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3664 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Page 48
277. Cited by:
Regis Ins. Co. v. Doughboy Recreational, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1166 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
278. Cited by:
Kessler Inst. for Rehabilitation v. Mayor of Essex Fells, 876 F. Supp. 641, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1335, 8 Am. Disabilities Dec. 837 (D.N.J. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
876 F. Supp. 641 p.654
279. Cited by:Dunkel v. Dunkel, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2035 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
280. Cited by:
Carlough v. Amchem Prods., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6027, 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70238 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
281. Cited by:
Independence Public Media, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Com., 813 F. Supp. 335, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2945 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
813 F. Supp. 335 p.341
282. Cited by:Exxon Corp. v. Stewart, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22639 (D.N.J. June 30, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
283. Cited by:
Hammond v. Creative Financial Planning Organization, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 1244, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3357 (E.D. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
800 F. Supp. 1244 p.1249
284. Cited by:Clark v. Court of Common Pleas, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14695 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
285. Cited by:
Chambers Dev. Co. v. North Huntingdon, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19982 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
286. Followed by, Cited by:
Oxford House-Evergreen v. Plainfield, 769 F. Supp. 1329, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10645 (D.N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Followed by:769 F. Supp. 1329 p.1341
Cited by:769 F. Supp. 1329 p.1339
287. Cited by:Avraham v. Zaffarano, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10373 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Page 49
288. Cited by:
In re Asbestos Sch. Litig., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5142 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
289. Cited by:
Smith v. Baldwin, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12215 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
290. Cited by:Sherman v. Blum, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1650 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
291. Cited by:
Smith v. Wood, 649 F. Supp. 901, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20305 (E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
649 F. Supp. 901 p.903
292. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Melso, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21077, 1986-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67283 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
293. Cited by:
Shipley v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 619 F. Supp. 421, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16494 (D. Del. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
619 F. Supp. 421 p.433
294. Cited by:MIMMS v. FRAME, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19628 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
295. Followed by:
Bonser v. New Jersey, 605 F. Supp. 1227, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21162, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21163, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1496 (D.N.J. 1985)
605 F. Supp. 1227 p.1230
296. Cited by:Bonser v. New Jersey, 605 F. Supp. 1227, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21162, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1496 (D.N.J. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
297. Cited by:
Roodveldt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 770, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752 (E.D. Pa. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
585 F. Supp. 770 p.783
298. Cited by:Coleman v. Stanziani, 570 F. Supp. 679, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13788 (E.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
570 F. Supp. 679 p.685
299. Cited by:Carpenter v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 508 F. Supp. 148, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10367, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P31653, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1298 (E.D. Pa. 1981)
Page 50
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6508 F. Supp. 148 p.149
300. Cited by:Adams v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 502 F. Supp. 1282, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16372 (M.D. Pa. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
502 F. Supp. 1282 p.1286
301. Cited by:Humphreys v. Burke, 502 F. Supp. 449, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15125 (D.N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
502 F. Supp. 449 p.455
302. Cited by:Shirey v. Bensalem Township, 501 F. Supp. 1138, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15333 (E.D. Pa. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7
501 F. Supp. 1138 p.1145
303. Cited by:New Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery of Bible Presbyterian Church v. New Jersey State Board of Higher Education, 482 F. Supp. 968, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10755 (D.N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
482 F. Supp. 968 p.977
304. Cited by:United States ex rel. Frisbee v. Rapone, 449 F. Supp. 509, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18139 (E.D. Pa. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
449 F. Supp. 509 p.511
305. Cited by:Greenspan v. Klein, 442 F. Supp. 860, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12191 (D.N.J. 1977)
442 F. Supp. 860 p.866
306. Cited by:Garrett v. Hoffman, 441 F. Supp. 1151, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13166 (E.D. Pa. 1977)
441 F. Supp. 1151 p.1158
307. Cited by:Clark v. Lutcher, 436 F. Supp. 1266, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14245 (M.D. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
436 F. Supp. 1266 p.1270
308. Cited by:Johnson v. Kelly, 436 F. Supp. 155, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15037 (E.D. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
436 F. Supp. 155 p.162
Page 51
436 F. Supp. 155 p.167
309. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Rite Aid Corp. v. Board of Pharmacy, 421 F. Supp. 1161, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13245 (D.N.J. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
421 F. Supp. 1161 p.1181
310. Explained by:Baker v. Gotz, 415 F. Supp. 1243, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14769 (D. Del. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
415 F. Supp. 1243 p.1247415 F. Supp. 1243 p.1248
311. Cited by:Matherly v. Lamb, 414 F. Supp. 364, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15024 (E.D. Pa. 1976)
414 F. Supp. 364 p.366
312. Cited by:Sorger v. Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, 401 F. Supp. 348, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15989 (E.D. Pa. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
401 F. Supp. 348 p.353
313. Cited by:Classic Distributors, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 387 F. Supp. 829, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6229 (M.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
387 F. Supp. 829 p.835
314. Cited by:Reed v. Thomas, 385 F. Supp. 266, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6673 (W.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
385 F. Supp. 266 p.268
315. Cited by:Siegel v. Salisbury, 379 F. Supp. 317, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 (W.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
379 F. Supp. 317 p.321
316. Cited by:Killian v. Philadelphia, 377 F. Supp. 988, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7982 (E.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
377 F. Supp. 988 p.991
317. Cited by:United States v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Bd., 377 F. Supp. 545, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8102 (M.D. Pa. 1974)
377 F. Supp. 545 p.549
Page 52
318. Cited by:Salvati v. Dale, 364 F. Supp. 691, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11612 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
364 F. Supp. 691 p.704
319. Cited by:Kadash v. Williamsport, 362 F. Supp. 1343, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12927 (M.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
362 F. Supp. 1343 p.1346
320. Cited by:Freeman & Bass, P. A. v. New Jersey Com. of Investigation, 359 F. Supp. 1053, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14131 (D.N.J. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
359 F. Supp. 1053 p.1061
321. Cited by:Meadors v. Walter, 58 F.R.D. 634, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14616, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 635 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
58 F.R.D. 634 p.636
322. Cited by:Jennings v. Boenning & Co., 352 F. Supp. 1000, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11367 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
352 F. Supp. 1000 p.1004
323. Cited by:Wright v. Specter, 352 F. Supp. 317, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10672 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
352 F. Supp. 317 p.319
324. Cited by:Philadelphia World Hockey Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 457, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11835 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
351 F. Supp. 457 p.459
325. Explained by:Mertes v. Mertes, 350 F. Supp. 472, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11307 (D. Del. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
350 F. Supp. 472 p.475
3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
326. Cited by:Ernst & Young, LLP v. Reilly (In re Earned Capital Corp.), 393 B.R. 362, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2279, 50 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 149 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Page 53
393 B.R. 362 p.369
327. Cited by:In re Fidelity America Financial Corp., 63 B.R. 995, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5423 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
63 B.R. 995 p.997
328. Cited by:In re Fidelity America Financial Corp., 53 B.R. 930, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5126 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
53 B.R. 930 p.933
4TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
329. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7050, 32 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1769 (4th Cir. S.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:364 F.3d 521 p.532
Cited by:364 F.3d 521 p.531
330. Cited by:Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26480, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1982, 95 TNT 195-8 (4th Cir. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
65 F.3d 1126 p.113065 F.3d 1126 p.1131
331. Cited by:Dionne v. Mayor of Baltimore, 40 F.3d 677, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33050 (4th Cir. Md. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
40 F.3d 677 p.684
332. Cited by:Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3053, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2649, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10628 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
926 F.2d 353 p.361
333. Cited by:LCS Servs., Inc. v. Hamrick, 925 F.2d 745, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2046, 32 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1921 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
925 F.2d 745 p.749
334. Cited by:Bluefield Community Hospital, Inc. v. Anziulewicz, 737 F.2d 405, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21384, 1984-2
Page 54
Trade Cas. (CCH) P66066 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7737 F.2d 405 p.408
335. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926 (4th Cir. Va. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
717 F.2d 888 p.902
336. Cited by:Allen v. Burke, 690 F.2d 376, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415 (4th Cir. Va. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
690 F.2d 376 p.379
337. Cited by:Swann v. Gastonia Housing Authority, 675 F.2d 1342, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20298 (4th Cir. N.C. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
675 F.2d 1342 p.1347
338. Explained by:North v. Budig, 637 F.2d 246, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21126 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
637 F.2d 246 p.247
339. Cited by:Usery v. Charleston County School Dist., 558 F.2d 1169, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12312, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7741, 17 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 597, 82 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33554, 77 Labor Relations N.L.R.B. (P-H) P14390, 23 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 374 (4th Cir. S.C. 1977)
558 F.2d 1169 p.1171
340. Cited by:Rimmer v. Fayetteville Police Dep't, 567 F.2d 273, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5548 (4th Cir. N.C. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
567 F.2d 273 p.275
341. Cited by:Sumey v. Martinsville, 529 F.2d 517, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12643 (4th Cir. Va. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
342. Cited by:
Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11447 (4th Cir. S.C. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
528 F.2d 811 p.814
343. Cited by:Moye v. Raleigh, 503 F.2d 631, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6675 (4th Cir. N.C. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
503 F.2d 631 p.633
Page 55
344. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Joseph v. Blair, 488 F.2d 403, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7729 (4th Cir. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
488 F.2d 403 p.405
345. Cited by:Lynch v. Snepp, 472 F.2d 769, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11990 (4th Cir. N.C. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
472 F.2d 769 p.771
4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
346. Cited by:Westfall v. West Virginia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98480 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 14, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98480
347. Cited by:Edmond v. Ozmint, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89248 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89248
348. Cited by:Ward v. Simpers, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42172 (D. Md. May 29, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42172
349. Followed by:Green v. City of Welch, 467 F. Supp. 2d 656, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93124 (S.D. W. Va. 2006)
467 F. Supp. 2d 656 p.664
350. Cited by:Bryan v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35650 (M.D.N.C. May 31, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35650
351. Cited by:FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11352, 2005-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74813 (D. Md. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
373 F. Supp. 2d 558 p.565
352. Cited by:Sherman v. Jones, 258 F. Supp. 2d 440, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6896 (E.D. Va. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
258 F. Supp. 2d 440 p.441
Page 56
353. Cited by:Henderson Amusement v. Good, 172 F. Supp. 2d 751, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21117 (W.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
172 F. Supp. 2d 751 p.757
354. Cited by:Banks v. North Carolina ex rel. North Carolina State Bar, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5037 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
355. Cited by:
Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 869 F. Supp. 398, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17699 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
869 F. Supp. 398 p.404869 F. Supp. 398 p.405
356. Cited by:Medigen of Kentucky, Inc. v. Public Service Com., 787 F. Supp. 602, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3245 (S.D. W. Va. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
787 F. Supp. 602 p.610
357. Cited by:United States v. Byars, 762 F. Supp. 1235, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5520 (E.D. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
762 F. Supp. 1235 p.1237
358. Cited by:W.W. Enterprise, Inc. v. Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1326, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17351, 1991-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69326, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1219 (W.D.N.C. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
753 F. Supp. 1326 p.1328
359. Cited by:Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. Cassilly, 729 F. Supp. 1106, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1190 (D. Md. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
729 F. Supp. 1106 p.1108
360. Cited by:Lopez v. Preferred Sav. Bank, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18066 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
361. Cited by:
Skeeter v. Norfolk, 681 F. Supp. 1149, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38088, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1481 (E.D. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
681 F. Supp. 1149 p.1159
362. Cited by:Doe v. Rockingham County School Bd., 658 F. Supp. 403, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3250 (W.D. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
Page 57
658 F. Supp. 403 p.410
363. Cited by:Widdowson v. Taylor, 44 B.R. 548, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 655, 11 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1028 (D. Md. 1984)
44 B.R. 548 p.549
364. Cited by:In re Taylor, 44 B.R. 548, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23322, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 655, 11 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1028 (D. Md. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
365. Cited by:
Lee v. Winston, 551 F. Supp. 247, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (E.D. Va. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
366. Cited by:
Lee v. Winston, 551 F. Supp. 247, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15497, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (E.D. Va. 1982)
551 F. Supp. 247 p.255
367. Cited by:Harman v. Daniels, 525 F. Supp. 798, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15579 (W.D. Va. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
525 F. Supp. 798 p.800
368. Cited by:Bennett v. Reed, 534 F. Supp. 83, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17524 (E.D.N.C. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
534 F. Supp. 83 p.88
369. Followed by:Board of Supervisors v. Circuit Court of Dickenson County, 500 F. Supp. 212, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17363, 15 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1311, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20146 (W.D. Va. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
500 F. Supp. 212 p.213
370. Cited by:Chertkof v. Baltimore, 497 F. Supp. 1252, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13815 (D. Md. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
497 F. Supp. 1252 p.1256
371. Cited by:Hopkins v. Cobb, 466 F. Supp. 1212, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14460 (D.S.C. 1979)
466 F. Supp. 1212 p.1215
372. Cited by:Greene v. Virginia State Bar Asso., 411 F. Supp. 512, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15695 (E.D. Va. 1976)
Page 58
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5411 F. Supp. 512 p.517
373. Cited by:Fitchette v. Collins, 402 F. Supp. 147, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15771 (D. Md. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
402 F. Supp. 147 p.152
374. Cited by:Becker v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15581, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P61527 (D. Md. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
375. Cited by:
Cottrell v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 363 F. Supp. 692, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432 (E.D. Va. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
363 F. Supp. 692 p.695
376. Cited by:Lynch v. Snepp, 350 F. Supp. 1134, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11122 (W.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
350 F. Supp. 1134 p.1139
377. Cited by:Wood v. Moore, 350 F. Supp. 29, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11333 (W.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
350 F. Supp. 29 p.31
378. Cited by:Shaffer v. Holbrook, 346 F. Supp. 762, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12494 (S.D. W. Va. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
346 F. Supp. 762 p.764
4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
379. Cited by:In re Seidelman, 57 B.R. 149, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6894, 14 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1 (Bankr. D. Md. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
57 B.R. 149 p.153
5TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
380. Cited by:Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14326 (5th Cir. La. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
534 F.3d 487 p.494
381. Cited by:
Page 59
Regions Bank v. Rivet, 224 F.3d 483, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21159, 44 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1351 (5th Cir. La. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
224 F.3d 483 p.489
382. Cited by:American Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 202 F.3d 788, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276 (5th Cir. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
202 F.3d 788 p.802
383. Cited by:Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (5th Cir. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
44 F.3d 362 p.369
384. Cited by:Total Plan Services, Inc. v. Texas Retailers Ass'n, 925 F.2d 142, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3460, 13 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1706 (5th Cir. Tex. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
925 F.2d 142 p.144
385. Cited by:Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1211, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1293 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
894 F.2d 127 p.132
386. Distinguished by:Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17750 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
862 F.2d 491 p.503
387. Cited by:United States v. Lemaire, 826 F.2d 387, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12081 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
826 F.2d 387 p.388
388. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 820 F.2d 1406, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585, 1988 A.M.C. 1202 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Followed by:820 F.2d 1406 p.1415
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:820 F.2d 1406 p.1425
389. Cited by:Regional Properties, Inc. v. Financial & Real Estate Consulting Co., 678 F.2d 552, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18737, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98718 (5th Cir. Tex. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
678 F.2d 552 p.566
Page 60
390. Cited by:Southern Jam, Inc. v. Robinson, 675 F.2d 94, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19476 (5th Cir. Ga. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
675 F.2d 94 p.96
391. Followed by:Gresham Park Community Organization v. Howell, 652 F.2d 1227, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18616 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
652 F.2d 1227 p.1234
392. Cited by:State Fair of Texas v. United States Consumer Prod. & Safety Comm'n, 650 F.2d 1324, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11853 (5th Cir. Tex. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
650 F.2d 1324 p.1333
393. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F.2d 900, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20781, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P31526, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1373 (5th Cir. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
634 F.2d 900 p.915634 F.2d 900 p.923
394. Cited by:Wilson v. Thompson, 638 F.2d 799, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19752 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
638 F.2d 799 p.801
395. Cited by:Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F.2d 943, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21016 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
636 F.2d 943 p.944
396. Explained by:Piambino v. Bailey, 610 F.2d 1306, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20757, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 370, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97275 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
610 F.2d 1306 p.1330610 F.2d 1306 p.1331610 F.2d 1306 p.1332
397. Cited by:Henry v. First Nat'l Bank, 595 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14550 (5th Cir. Miss. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
595 F.2d 291 p.298595 F.2d 291 p.300
Page 61
398. Cited by:Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15032 (5th Cir. Ga. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
593 F.2d 1375 p.1383
399. Cited by:Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12266 (5th Cir. Miss. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
569 F.2d 219 p.225
400. Cited by:Beecher v. Baxley, 549 F.2d 974, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14064 (5th Cir. Ala. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN7
549 F.2d 974 p.976
401. Cited by:Kolski v. Watkins, 544 F.2d 762, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10725 (5th Cir. Fla. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
544 F.2d 762 p.766
402. Cited by:Gonzalez v. Southern Methodist University, 536 F.2d 1071, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7612 (5th Cir. Tex. 1976)
536 F.2d 1071 p.1072
403. Cited by:Carter v. Ogden Corp., 524 F.2d 74, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11647, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60665 (5th Cir. La. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
524 F.2d 74 p.76
404. Cited by:International Asso. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 512 F.2d 125, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14920, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2154, 76 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10848 (5th Cir. Ga. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
512 F.2d 125 p.129
405. Cited by:Response of Carolina v. Leasco Response, Inc., 498 F.2d 314, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 1974-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75182 (5th Cir. Fla. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
498 F.2d 314 p.320
406. Followed by:Joiner v. Dallas, 488 F.2d 519, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10512 (5th Cir. Tex. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
488 F.2d 519 p.520
Page 62
407. Cited by:American Radio Asso. v. Mobile S.S. Asso., 483 F.2d 1, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8233, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2047, 72 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P13903 (5th Cir. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
483 F.2d 1 p.6483 F.2d 1 p.7
408. Cited by:Jones v. Wade, 479 F.2d 1176, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9691 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
479 F.2d 1176 p.1181
409. Followed by, Cited by:Duke v. Texas, 477 F.2d 244, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10364 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
Followed by:477 F.2d 244 p.246
Cited by:477 F.2d 244 p.254
410. Cited by:Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 474 F.2d 1108, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11182 (5th Cir. La. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
474 F.2d 1108 p.1113
411. Cited by:Shaw v. Garrison, 467 F.2d 113, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8147 (5th Cir. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
467 F.2d 113 p.114
412. Cited by:Palaio v. McAuliffe, 466 F.2d 1230, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457 (5th Cir. Ga. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
466 F.2d 1230 p.1232
5TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
413. Cited by:Rehfuss v. Guadalupe County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105235 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105235
414. Cited by:Chaffe McCall, LLP v. World Trade Ctr. of New Orleans, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14353 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14353
Page 63
415. Cited by:Alexander v. Brookhaven Sch. Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6152 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6152
416. Cited by:Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Co., LLC v. Larrisquitu, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59726, 2007 A.M.C. 2141 (S.D. Tex. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59726
417. Cited by:Coughhorn v. Jackson County, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80464 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 2, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80464
418. Distinguished by, Followed by, Cited by:Moore v. Louisiana, 459 F. Supp. 2d 504, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80217 (M.D. La. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Distinguished by:459 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.509
Followed by:459 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.508
Cited by:459 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.507
419. Cited by:Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. CaremarkPCS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44712 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44712
420. Cited by:Energy Dev. Corp. v. St. Martin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994 (E.D. La. Jan. 24, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994
421. Cited by:Torries v. Hebert, 111 F. Supp. 2d 806, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18442 (W.D. La. 2000)
111 F. Supp. 2d 806 p.814
422. Cited by:Faulder v. Johnson, 99 F. Supp. 2d 774, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21819 (S.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
99 F. Supp. 2d 774 p.776
423. Cited by:
Page 64
American Tourmaline Fields v. International Paper Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7584 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7584
424. Followed by:Johnson v. New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Found., Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7038 (E.D. La. May 10, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7038
425. Cited by:New York Life Ins. Co. v. Gillespie, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15569 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 17, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15569
426. Cited by:Liptak v. Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5424 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5424
427. Cited by:Hurst v. Regis Low, Ltd., 878 F. Supp. 981, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2976 (S.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
878 F. Supp. 981 p.984
428. Cited by:Wightman v. Jones, 809 F. Supp. 474, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20296 (N.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
809 F. Supp. 474 p.478
429. Cited by:Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist., 791 F. Supp. 1170, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6310 (W.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
791 F. Supp. 1170 p.1189
430. Cited by:Nissan Motor Corp. v. Royal Nissan, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 736, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2848 (E.D. La. 1991)
757 F. Supp. 736 p.738
431. Cited by:Wicker v. Union County General Hospital, 673 F. Supp. 177, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10544, 1987-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67804 (N.D. Miss. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5
673 F. Supp. 177 p.183
432. Cited by:El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Valero Interstate Transmission Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14147 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
Page 65
433. Cited by:
Texas Employers Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 618 F. Supp. 1316, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15422 (E.D. Tex. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
618 F. Supp. 1316 p.1323
434. Cited by:Bear Creek Water Asso. v. Canton, 606 F. Supp. 247, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21964 (S.D. Miss. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
606 F. Supp. 247 p.249606 F. Supp. 247 p.250
435. Cited by:Martinez v. Deaf Smith County Grain Processors, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1200, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19008, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34592, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1167 (N.D. Tex. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
583 F. Supp. 1200 p.1211
436. Cited by:Pizzolato v. Perez, 524 F. Supp. 914, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15580 (E.D. La. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
524 F. Supp. 914 p.923
437. Explained by:Bates v. Estelle, 483 F. Supp. 224, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9892 (S.D. Tex. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
483 F. Supp. 224 p.227
438. Cited by:Corpus Christi Peoples' Baptist Church, Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Human Resources, 481 F. Supp. 1101, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8439, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1028 (S.D. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
481 F. Supp. 1101 p.1106
439. Cited by:Brown v. Jones, 473 F. Supp. 439, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13692 (N.D. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
473 F. Supp. 439 p.449
440. Cited by:Nash v. Chandler, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2342 (E.D. Tex. 1979)
441. Cited by:
ROUSSEL v. BOREN, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14515 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
442. Cited by:
M P I, Inc. v. McCullough, 463 F. Supp. 887, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7247 (N.D. Miss. 1978) LexisNexis
Page 66
Headnotes HN6, HN7463 F. Supp. 887 p.893
443. Cited by:Britt v. Suckle, 453 F. Supp. 987, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815 (E.D. Tex. 1978)
453 F. Supp. 987 p.1002
444. Cited by:Shore v. Howard, 414 F. Supp. 379, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14998 (N.D. Tex. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
414 F. Supp. 379 p.385
445. Cited by:Joiner v. Dallas, 380 F. Supp. 754, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7116 (N.D. Tex. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
380 F. Supp. 754 p.758
446. Followed by:Harrington v. Arceneaux, 367 F. Supp. 1268, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14375 (W.D. La. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
367 F. Supp. 1268 p.1272
447. Explained by:United States v. Texas, 356 F. Supp. 469, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12114 (E.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
356 F. Supp. 469 p.471
448. Cited by:Ferdinand v. Garrison, 348 F. Supp. 1254, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12039 (E.D. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
348 F. Supp. 1254 p.1257
449. Cited by:McGuire v. Roebuck, 347 F. Supp. 1111, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12360 (E.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
347 F. Supp. 1111 p.1118
6TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
450. Cited by:Bey v. Bagley, 301 Fed. Appx. 442, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23818, 2008 FED App. 703N (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
301 Fed. Appx. 442 p.445
451. Cited by:Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm'n, 501 F.3d 592, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20607, 2007
Page 67
FED App. 347P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7501 F.3d 592 p.600
452. Followed by:Parker v. Goodman (In re Parker), 499 F.3d 616, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20551, 2007 FED App. 343P (6th Cir.), Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P81003 (6th Cir. Ky. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
499 F.3d 616 p.626
453. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Cooey v. Bradshaw, 338 F.3d 615, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 15369, 2003 FED App. 267P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
338 F.3d 615 p.620
454. Cited by:Tropf v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9054, 2002 FED App. 169P (6th Cir.), RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P10262 (6th Cir. Mich. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
289 F.3d 929 p.942
455. Cited by:NGS Am., Inc. v. Jefferson, 218 F.3d 519, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15521, 2000 FED App. 0216P (6th Cir.), 2000 FED App. 216P (6th Cir.), 24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1971 (6th Cir. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
218 F.3d 519 p.523
456. Cited by:Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., 142 F.3d 326, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7483, 1998 FED App. 113P (6th Cir.), 1998 FED App. 0113P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
142 F.3d 326 p.329142 F.3d 326 p.331
457. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 1072, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262, 1998 FED App. 88P (6th Cir.), 1998 FED App. 0088P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
139 F.3d 1072 p.1078
458. Cited by:Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., 119 F.3d 393, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17812, 1997 FED App. 217P (6th Cir.), 1997 FED App. 0217P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
119 F.3d 393 p.398
459. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20816, 1995 FED App. 240P (6th Cir.), 1995 FED App. 0240P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
61 F.3d 507 p.510
Page 68
460. Cited by:Arlans Agency v. Gossett, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175 (6th Cir. Mich. Jan. 19, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
461. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Alia v. Michigan Supreme Court, 906 F.2d 1100, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10063 (6th Cir. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
906 F.2d 1100 p.1106
462. Cited by:Ballard v. Stanton, 833 F.2d 593, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17708 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
833 F.2d 593 p.594
463. Cited by:Tierney v. Toledo, 824 F.2d 1497, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9942, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3217 (6th Cir. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
824 F.2d 1497 p.1507
464. Cited by:Kelley v. Ohio, 818 F.2d 866, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6521 (6th Cir. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
465. Cited by:
South Macomb Disposal Authority v. Washington, 790 F.2d 500, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25113 (6th Cir. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
790 F.2d 500 p.502
466. Cited by:Janzen v. Knox County Bd. of Education, 790 F.2d 484, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24930 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
790 F.2d 484 p.486
467. Cited by:Silverberg v. Thomson McKinnon Secur., Inc., 787 F.2d 1079, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23837, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92551 (6th Cir. Ohio 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
787 F.2d 1079 p.1083
468. Cited by:Elliott v. University of Tennessee, 766 F.2d 982, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20422, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P35419, 38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 522 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
766 F.2d 982 p.991
469. Cited by:Traughber v. Beauchane, 760 F.2d 673, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30995 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
760 F.2d 673 p.683
Page 69
470. Cited by:Fellowship of Christ Church v. Thorburn, 758 F.2d 1140, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30571 (6th Cir. Mich. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
758 F.2d 1140 p.1143
471. Cited by:HARMON v. SWAGGERT, 754 F.2d 374, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 13426 (6th Cir. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
472. Cited by:
American Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke, 708 F.2d 202, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28110 (6th Cir. Ky. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
708 F.2d 202 p.204
473. Cited by:Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25422, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98822 (6th Cir. Mich. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
690 F.2d 558 p.562
474. Cited by:Silcox v. United Trucking Service, Inc., 687 F.2d 848, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25942 (6th Cir. Ky. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
687 F.2d 848 p.850
475. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Northwood Apartments v. La Valley, 649 F.2d 401, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13279 (6th Cir. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:649 F.2d 401 p.410
Cited by:649 F.2d 401 p.406
476. Explained by:General Motors Corp. v. Buha, 623 F.2d 455, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16620, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2375 (6th Cir. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
623 F.2d 455 p.458
477. Cited by:Roth v. Bank of Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9265 (6th Cir. Mich. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
583 F.2d 527 p.533
478. Cited by:Flynt v. Leis, 574 F.2d 874, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11714 (6th Cir. Ohio 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
574 F.2d 874 p.880
Page 70
479. Cited by:Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff, 549 F.2d 1052, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10266 (6th Cir. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
549 F.2d 1052 p.1061549 F.2d 1052 p.1062
480. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Louisville Area Inter-Faith Committee for United Farm Workers v. Nottingham Liquors, Ltd., 542 F.2d 652, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6875, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2600, 79 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11762 (6th Cir. Ky. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
542 F.2d 652 p.655
481. Cited by:United States v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F.2d 962, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12745 (6th Cir. Mich. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
522 F.2d 962 p.965
482. Cited by:Sexton v. Kennedy, 519 F.2d 797, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15139 (6th Cir. Ohio 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
519 F.2d 797 p.797
483. Cited by:Krause v. Rhodes, 471 F.2d 430, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6656 (6th Cir. Ohio 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
471 F.2d 430 p.439
484. Cited by:Gay v. Board of Registration Comm'rs, 466 F.2d 879, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7729 (6th Cir. Ky. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
466 F.2d 879 p.884
6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
485. Followed by:5455 Clarkins Drive, Inc. v. Poole, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80456 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80456
486. Cited by:Haase v. GunnAllen Fin., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70013 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70013
487. Cited by:Rea v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76315 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2009)
Page 71
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN72009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76315
488. Cited by:Co-Patent Owners # U.S. 6,889,615 v. Michigan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64617 ( E.D. Mich. July 27, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64617
489. Followed by:Smith v. Encore Credit Corp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 910, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99413 (N.D. Ohio 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
623 F. Supp. 2d 910 p.919
490. Cited by:Butler v. Tennessee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52967 (W.D. Tenn. July 10, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52967
491. Cited by:Cooey v. Strickland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17057 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17057
492. Cited by:Bowman v. City of Middleburg Heights, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70664 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70664
493. Cited by:Cooey v. Strickland, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67390 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67390
494. Followed by:Peacock v. PACE Int'l Union Pension Fund Plan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62471, 42 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1696 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62471
495. Followed by:Mosby v. Baity, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61571 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61571
496. Cited by:Cooey v. Taft, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45769 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45769
Page 72
497. Cited by:Birkholz v. County of Macomb, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68398 ( E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68398
498. Cited by:Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32963, 18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 268 (W.D. Mich. May 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32963
499. Cited by:Warner v. Fuller Rehab. & Consulting Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41699 (E.D. Tenn. June 23, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41699
500. Cited by:Deir v. City of Mentor, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44857 (N.D. Ohio June 20, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44857
501. Followed by:Smith v. Oakland County Circuit Court, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22853 ( E.D. Mich. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
344 F. Supp. 2d 1030 p.1070
502. Followed by:Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Baird, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15873 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15873
503. Cited by:Epps v. Lauderdale County, 139 F. Supp. 2d 859, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
139 F. Supp. 2d 859 p.868
504. Cited by:Tesmer v. Kowalski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 622, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17060 ( E.D. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
114 F. Supp. 2d 622 p.627
505. Cited by:In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 876, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4998 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
93 F. Supp. 2d 876 p.879
Page 73
506. Cited by:Tesmer v. Granholm, 114 F. Supp. 2d 603, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16346 ( E.D. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
114 F. Supp. 2d 603 p.617
507. Cited by:Marks v. City of Warren, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17990 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17990
508. Cited by:Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of Court, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15928 ( E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15928
509. Cited by:Neway Anchorlok Int'l, Inc. v. Longwood Indus., 107 F. Supp. 2d 810, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22092, 2000-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73048 (W.D. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
107 F. Supp. 2d 810 p.813
510. Cited by:Caughorn v. Phillips, 981 F. Supp. 1085, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17947 (E.D. Tenn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
981 F. Supp. 1085 p.1087
511. Cited by:Alexander v. Margolis, 921 F. Supp. 482, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17611, 13 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1017 (W.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
921 F. Supp. 482 p.484
512. Cited by:Hardison v. Griswold, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5151, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2195, 95 TNT 102-11 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2195 p.2196
513. Cited by:Michigan Protection & Advocacy Servs. v. Kirkendall, 863 F. Supp. 482, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12638 ( E.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
514. Cited by:
Martin v. Voinovich, 840 F. Supp. 1175, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18468, 1 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P1-201, 4 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1240, 43 Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 409 (S.D. Ohio 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
840 F. Supp. 1175 p.1189
515. Cited by:
Page 74
Michigan Protection & Advocacy Serv. v. Kirkendall, 841 F. Supp. 796, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17767 ( E.D. Mich. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
841 F. Supp. 796 p.802
516. Cited by:Professional Hockey Club Cent. Sports Club of Army v. Detroit Red Wings, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 706, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3703 ( E.D. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
787 F. Supp. 706 p.716
517. Cited by:Mallitz v. Federal Packaging Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21764 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
518. Cited by:
Keith v. Elden, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19573 ( E.D. Mich. May 9, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
519. Cited by:
Howard v. Allard, 122 B.R. 696, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2956 (W.D. Ky. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
122 B.R. 696 p.699
520. Limited by, Cited by:Automobile Club of Michigan v. Stacey, 750 F. Supp. 259, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15662 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Limited by:750 F. Supp. 259 p.262
Cited by:750 F. Supp. 259 p.263
521. Cited by:Prak v. Gregart, 749 F. Supp. 825, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14725 (W.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
749 F. Supp. 825 p.827
522. Cited by:Shannon v. Recording Industry Ass'n, 661 F. Supp. 205, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15079 (S.D. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
661 F. Supp. 205 p.209
523. Cited by:Friedman v. Hall, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15696 ( E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
524. Cited by:
Brandon v. Allen, 645 F. Supp. 1261, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19389 (W.D. Tenn. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
645 F. Supp. 1261 p.1269
Page 75
525. Cited by:Ohio ex rel. Ney v. PJC, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 28, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23992 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
592 F. Supp. 28 p.30
526. Cited by:Donovan v. Hamilton County Municipal Court, 580 F. Supp. 554, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19593, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34590, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1246 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
580 F. Supp. 554 p.558
527. Cited by:Klotz v. Underwood, 563 F. Supp. 335, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9963 (E.D. Tenn. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
563 F. Supp. 335 p.341
528. Cited by:Danish News Co. v. Ann Arbor, 517 F. Supp. 86, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13065 ( E.D. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
517 F. Supp. 86 p.94
529. Cited by:Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Education, 510 F. Supp. 1104, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11435 (W.D. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
510 F. Supp. 1104 p.1108
530. Cited by:United States v. Michigan, 508 F. Supp. 480, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14768 (W.D. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
508 F. Supp. 480 p.486
531. Cited by:United States v. Michigan, 505 F. Supp. 467, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17715 (W.D. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
505 F. Supp. 467 p.486
532. Cited by:Newark Teachers Asso. v. Newark City Board of Education, 444 F. Supp. 1283, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19672 (S.D. Ohio 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5
444 F. Supp. 1283 p.1285
533. Explained by, Cited by:Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13211, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1337 (N.D. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
Explained by:448 F. Supp. 306 p.331
Page 76
448 F. Supp. 306 p.364
Cited by:448 F. Supp. 306 p.335448 F. Supp. 306 p.352448 F. Supp. 306 p.366
534. Cited by:International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Evans, 440 F. Supp. 414, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14299 (S.D. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
440 F. Supp. 414 p.419
535. Followed by:Hearing Aid Asso. v. Bullock, 413 F. Supp. 1032, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16212 (E.D. Ky. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
413 F. Supp. 1032 p.1035
536. Cited by:Karr v. Blay, 413 F. Supp. 579, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15641, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 221 (N.D. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
413 F. Supp. 579 p.585
537. Cited by:Hodory v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 408 F. Supp. 1016, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16300 (N.D. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
408 F. Supp. 1016 p.1018
538. Cited by:Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 73 F.R.D. 30, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12422 (W.D. Mich. 1976)
73 F.R.D. 30 p.38
539. Followed by:Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff, 399 F. Supp. 409, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16371 (N.D. Ohio 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
399 F. Supp. 409 p.413
540. Cited by:Watson v. Branch County Bank, 380 F. Supp. 945, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7197, 15 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (CBC) 235 (W.D. Mich. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
380 F. Supp. 945 p.957380 F. Supp. 945 p.963
541. Cited by:Watson v. Kenlick Coal Co., 365 F. Supp. 456, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11775 (E.D. Ky. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
365 F. Supp. 456 p.457
Page 77
542. Cited by:Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court, 349 F. Supp. 1125, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12534, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 309, 69 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P32747, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 856 (S.D. Ohio 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
349 F. Supp. 1125 p.1137349 F. Supp. 1125 p.1138
6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
543. Cited by:In re Padgett, 37 B.R. 280, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5143, 11 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 739 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
37 B.R. 280 p.282
544. Cited by:In re Manier, 16 B.R. 911, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 5062, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P68670 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
7TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
545. Explained by:Mannix v. Machnik, 244 Fed. Appx. 37, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16144 (7th Cir. Ill. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
244 Fed. Appx. 37 p.39
546. Cited by:United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11245 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
411 F.3d 838 p.845
547. Cited by:Lawson v. Hill, 368 F.3d 955, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10158 (7th Cir. Ind. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
368 F.3d 955 p.960
548. Cited by:Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court for Cal., 326 F.3d 816, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7302 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
326 F.3d 816 p.824
549. Cited by:Ramsden v. AgriBank, FCB, 214 F.3d 865, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12097 (7th Cir. Wis. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
214 F.3d 865 p.869
550. Cited by:Arkebauer v. Kiley, 985 F.2d 1351, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 78
HN4, HN5, HN6985 F.2d 1351 p.1357
551. Questioned by:NAACP v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26682, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 278 (7th Cir. Wis. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
978 F.2d 287 p.295
552. Cited by:Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran, 959 F.2d 634, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254 (7th Cir. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
959 F.2d 634 p.635
553. Cited by:Heldstab v. Milwaukee, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20500 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
554. Cited by:
Pelfresne v. Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19667 (7th Cir. Wis. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
917 F.2d 1017 p.1023
555. Cited by:United States v. Lov-It Creamery, Inc., 895 F.2d 410, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933 (7th Cir. Wis. 1990)
895 F.2d 410 p.412
556. Cited by:Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utilities Co., 864 F.2d 481, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17736, 1988-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P68375 (7th Cir. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
864 F.2d 481 p.482
557. Cited by:Bethune Plaza, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 863 F.2d 525, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17172, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1400 (7th Cir. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
863 F.2d 525 p.528
558. Distinguished by, Explained by, Cited by:Hickey v. Duffy, 827 F.2d 234, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11301, 8 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 974 (7th Cir. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
Distinguished by:827 F.2d 234 p.238
Explained by:827 F.2d 234 p.244
Cited by:827 F.2d 234 p.241
Page 79
559. Cited by:Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Hartigan, 816 F.2d 1177, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690, 25 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1892, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20745 (7th Cir. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
816 F.2d 1177 p.1182
560. Cited by:Dunn v. Carey, 808 F.2d 555, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35002 (7th Cir. Ind. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
808 F.2d 555 p.559
561. Cited by:Lynk v. La Porte Superior Court No. 2, 789 F.2d 554, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24686 (7th Cir. Ind. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
789 F.2d 554 p.558
562. Cited by:City Investing Co. v. Simcox, 633 F.2d 56, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13054, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97661 (7th Cir. Ind. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
633 F.2d 56 p.64
563. Cited by:Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19950 (7th Cir. Ill. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
616 F.2d 1006 p.1011
564. Explained by:La Salle Nat'l Bank v. Rosewell, 604 F.2d 530, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12249 (7th Cir. Ill. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
604 F.2d 530 p.539
565. Cited by:Mescall v. Burrus, 603 F.2d 1266, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12534 (7th Cir. Ill. 1979)
603 F.2d 1266 p.1270
566. Cited by:Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton, 582 F.2d 1071, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9758, 50 A.L.R. Fed. 758 (7th Cir. Ill. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7
582 F.2d 1071 p.1078
567. Cited by:United States v. Kuehn, 562 F.2d 427, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11517 (7th Cir. Ill. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
562 F.2d 427 p.431
568. Followed by:
Page 80
Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 545 F.2d 1050, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8807, 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60919 (7th Cir. Ill. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
545 F.2d 1050 p.1056
569. Cited by:Ahrensfeld v. Stephens, 528 F.2d 193, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11331 (7th Cir. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
528 F.2d 193 p.196
570. Cited by:Barancik v. Investors Funding Corp., 489 F.2d 933, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7224, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94208 (7th Cir. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
489 F.2d 933 p.936
571. Cited by:Clean Air Coordinating Committee v. Roth-Adam Fuel Co., 465 F.2d 323, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8631, 4 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1340, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20440 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
465 F.2d 323 p.326
572. Cited by:Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7265, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 798 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
468 F.2d 389 p.401468 F.2d 389 p.408468 F.2d 389 p.411
573. Cited by:Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F.2d 603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8705 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
463 F.2d 603 p.606463 F.2d 603 p.610
7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
574. Cited by:King v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17955 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17955
575. Cited by:Bedree v. Pers. Representative of Estate of Lebamoff, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23808 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23808
576. Cited by:Orban v. City of Warsaw, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42327 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 81
HN62007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42327
577. Followed by:United States EEOC v. Custom Cos., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16691 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16691
578. Cited by:Turner v. County of Cook, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31212 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31212
579. Cited by:Clarry v. Hatch, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31469 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31469
580. Cited by:Schmude v. Sheahan, 318 F. Supp. 2d 606, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8233 (N.D. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
318 F. Supp. 2d 606 p.625
581. Cited by:Schmude v. Sheahan, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5181 (N.D. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
312 F. Supp. 2d 1047 p.1078
582. Cited by:Garner v. Dreyer, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5913 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5913
583. Cited by:Catuara v. Heavner Handegan Scott & Beyers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8027 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8027
584. Distinguished by:Schmitt v. Schmitt, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1243 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1243
585. Cited by:Branch v. City of Elmhurst, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8868 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8868
Page 82
586. Cited by:Patterson v. Leyden, 947 F. Supp. 1211, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16395 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
947 F. Supp. 1211 p.1216
587. Cited by:United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Barker Car Rental, 944 F. Supp. 739, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16511 (S.D. Ind. 1996)
944 F. Supp. 739 p.747
588. Cited by:Offutt v. Kaplan, 884 F. Supp. 1179, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4882 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
884 F. Supp. 1179 p.1189
589. Cited by:United States v. Village of Palatine, 845 F. Supp. 540, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6619 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
845 F. Supp. 540 p.542
590. Cited by:Norris v. Board of Educ. of Greenwood Community School Corp., 797 F. Supp. 1452, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10404 (S.D. Ind. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
797 F. Supp. 1452 p.1464
591. Cited by:Black v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 750 F. Supp. 901, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15567 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
750 F. Supp. 901 p.903
592. Cited by:American Federation of State, etc. v. Tristano, 695 F. Supp. 410, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10829 (N.D. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
695 F. Supp. 410 p.410
593. Cited by:Munroe v. Lasch, 73 B.R. 909, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4101, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P71887 (E.D. Wis. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
73 B.R. 909 p.914
594. Cited by:Cronson v. Clark, 645 F. Supp. 793, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19119 (C.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
645 F. Supp. 793 p.794
595. Cited by:
Page 83
MATTHEWS v. ROUND BARN MANOR ASSN., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21997 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
596. Cited by:
Jones v. Chicago, 639 F. Supp. 146, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27781 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
639 F. Supp. 146 p.150
597. Cited by:In re Klawson, 50 B.R. 776, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18270, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 537 (N.D. Ind. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
598. Cited by:
Johns v. Klawson, 50 B.R. 776, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 537 (N.D. Ind. 1985)50 B.R. 776 p.778
599. Cited by:United States v. Phillips, 580 F. Supp. 517, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19651 (N.D. Ill. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
580 F. Supp. 517 p.519
600. Cited by:Eyler v. Babcox, 582 F. Supp. 981, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10651 (N.D. Ill. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
582 F. Supp. 981 p.984
601. Cited by:Begg v. Moffitt, 555 F. Supp. 1344, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19448 (N.D. Ill. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
555 F. Supp. 1344 p.1346
602. Cited by:Universal Business Computing Co. v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp., 539 F. Supp. 1142, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12746, 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64810 (N.D. Ill. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
539 F. Supp. 1142 p.1144
603. Followed by:EEOC v. Levi Strauss & Co., 515 F. Supp. 640, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13139, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32392, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 346 (N.D. Ill. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
515 F. Supp. 640 p.642
604. Cited by:HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK v. VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10686 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
605. Cited by:
Meyer v. Niles Township, 477 F. Supp. 357, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10824 (N.D. Ill. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
Page 84
477 F. Supp. 357 p.364
606. Explained by:United States General, Inc. v. Arndt, 417 F. Supp. 1300, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13793 (E.D. Wis. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
417 F. Supp. 1300 p.1308
607. Cited by:E-C Tape Service, Inc. v. Barron, 71 F.R.D. 585, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14220 (E.D. Wis. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
71 F.R.D. 585 p.58871 F.R.D. 585 p.589
608. Cited by:Hernandez v. Danaher, 405 F. Supp. 757, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14705 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
405 F. Supp. 757 p.759
609. Followed by:Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 403 F. Supp. 527, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12155, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60418 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
403 F. Supp. 527 p.536
610. Cited by:Do-Right Auto Sales v. Howlett, 401 F. Supp. 1035, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15964 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
401 F. Supp. 1035 p.1038
611. Cited by:Maney v. Ratcliff, 399 F. Supp. 760, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16359 (E.D. Wis. 1975)
399 F. Supp. 760 p.772
612. Cited by:Stebbins v. Weaver, 396 F. Supp. 104, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12092 (W.D. Wis. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
396 F. Supp. 104 p.110
613. Cited by:Nihiser v. Sendak, 405 F. Supp. 482, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8222 (N.D. Ind. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
405 F. Supp. 482 p.493
614. Cited by:Doe v. Ceci, 384 F. Supp. 7, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (E.D. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
384 F. Supp. 7 p.9
Page 85
615. Cited by:Concerned Consumers League v. O'Neill, 371 F. Supp. 644, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12122 (E.D. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
371 F. Supp. 644 p.646
616. Distinguished by:Adkins v. Underwood, 370 F. Supp. 510, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12757 (N.D. Ill. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
370 F. Supp. 510 p.514
617. Followed by:International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Conlisk, 374 F. Supp. 1010, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10434 (N.D. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
374 F. Supp. 1010 p.1013
618. Cited by:Foster v. Zeeko, 362 F. Supp. 295, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12569 (N.D. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
362 F. Supp. 295 p.298
619. Cited by:Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11526 (E.D. Wis. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
349 F. Supp. 1078 p.1083
620. Cited by:State ex rel. Bruce v. Larkin, 346 F. Supp. 1065, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12602 (E.D. Wis. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
346 F. Supp. 1065 p.1067
8TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
621. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litig., 263 F.3d 795, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19035, 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91546 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:263 F.3d 795 p.804
Cited by:263 F.3d 795 p.801
622. Cited by:Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (8th Cir. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
188 F.3d 1031 p.1035
Page 86
623. Cited by:SDDS, Inc. v. South Dakota (In re SDDS, Inc.), 97 F.3d 1030, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26020, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20290 (8th Cir. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
97 F.3d 1030 p.1037
624. Cited by:Kansas Pub. Emples. Retirement Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., 77 F.3d 1063, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3134 (8th Cir. Mo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
77 F.3d 1063 p.1069
625. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 909 F.2d 1181, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932 (8th Cir. N.D. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:909 F.2d 1181 p.1195
Cited by:909 F.2d 1181 p.1183
626. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Bressman v. Farrier, 900 F.2d 1305, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139 (8th Cir. Iowa 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
900 F.2d 1305 p.1311
627. Cited by:Hicks v. Brown Group, Inc., 902 F.2d 630, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6069, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39823, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1027 (8th Cir. Mo. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
902 F.2d 630 p.642
628. Cited by:Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 887 F.2d 844, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 15193 (8th Cir. N.D. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
887 F.2d 844 p.855
629. Cited by:Lewellen v. Raff, 843 F.2d 1103, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161 (8th Cir. Ark. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
843 F.2d 1103 p.1109
630. Cited by:Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24150 (8th Cir. Iowa 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
730 F.2d 1139 p.1146
631. Cited by:National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 687 F.2d 1122, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16542, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
Page 87
(CCH) P98778 (8th Cir. Mo. 1982)687 F.2d 1122 p.1127
632. Cited by:In re Federal Skywalk Cases, 680 F.2d 1175, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18649, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 176 (8th Cir. Mo. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
680 F.2d 1175 p.1181
633. Cited by:Peterson v. Sheran, 635 F.2d 1335, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11689 (8th Cir. Minn. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
635 F.2d 1335 p.1339
634. Cited by:McCurry v. Allen, 606 F.2d 795, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11502 (8th Cir. Mo. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
606 F.2d 795 p.799
635. Cited by:Krey Packing Co. v. Hamilton, 572 F.2d 1280, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11739, 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2111, 83 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10519 (8th Cir. Mo. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
572 F.2d 1280 p.1283
636. Cited by:Stockslager v. Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13492, 6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20388 (8th Cir. Ark. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
528 F.2d 949 p.951
637. Cited by:Sartin v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 535 F.2d 430, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11493 (8th Cir. Minn. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
535 F.2d 430 p.434
638. Cited by:Goodrich v. Supreme Court of South Dakota, 511 F.2d 316, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15756 (8th Cir. S.D. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
511 F.2d 316 p.318
8TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
639. Followed by:Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29517 (D.S.D. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
607 F. Supp. 2d 1069 p.1074
640. Cited by:
Page 88
Ebiza, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 434 F. Supp. 2d 710, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36214 (S.D. Iowa 2006)434 F. Supp. 2d 710 p.716
641. Cited by:Lopez v. City of Rogers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14570 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 8, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14570
642. Followed by, Cited by:In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litig., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6313, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90982 (E.D. Mo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
Followed by:95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.1051
Cited by:95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.104895 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.1049
643. Cited by:Wells' Dairy v. Estate of Richardson, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3199 (N.D. Iowa 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
89 F. Supp. 2d 1042 p.1062
644. Cited by:Dominium Mgmt. Servs. v. Nationwide Hous. Group, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7474 (D. Minn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
3 F. Supp. 2d 1067 p.1069
645. Cited by:Harmon v. City of Kansas City, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4757 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4757
646. Cited by:Gunderson v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 976 F. Supp. 818, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14174 (N.D. Iowa 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
976 F. Supp. 818 p.822
647. Followed by:Martin v. Constance, 843 F. Supp. 1321, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1559, 4 Am. Disabilities Dec. 523 (E.D. Mo. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
843 F. Supp. 1321 p.1323
648. Cited by:Trucke v. Erlemeier, 657 F. Supp. 1382, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3079 (N.D. Iowa 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
657 F. Supp. 1382 p.1387
Page 89
649. Cited by:Buranen v. Hanna, 623 F. Supp. 445, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13139 (D. Minn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
623 F. Supp. 445 p.449
650. Cited by:Icahn v. Blunt, 612 F. Supp. 1400, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18621, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92096 (W.D. Mo. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
612 F. Supp. 1400 p.1411
651. Cited by:Allen v. Johnston, 575 F. Supp. 935, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11802 (S.D. Iowa 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
575 F. Supp. 935 p.937
652. Cited by:Dick v. Watonwan County, 562 F. Supp. 1083, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17832, 13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1068 (D. Minn. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
562 F. Supp. 1083 p.1098
653. Cited by:Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 556 F. Supp. 740, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19265 (S.D. Iowa 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
556 F. Supp. 740 p.744
654. Cited by:National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 524 F. Supp. 906, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15067, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98299 (W.D. Mo. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN7
524 F. Supp. 906 p.913
655. Cited by:Gleghorn v. First Sec. Bank, 523 F. Supp. 359, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14774, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32391, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 911 (E.D. Ark. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
523 F. Supp. 359 p.361
656. Explained by:Empire, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 524 F. Supp. 898, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15066, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98310 (W.D. Mo. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
524 F. Supp. 898 p.901
657. Cited by:Rapp v. Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of Iowa State Bar Asso., 504 F. Supp. 1092, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15840 (S.D. Iowa 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
504 F. Supp. 1092 p.1102
Page 90
658. Cited by:Walker v. Wegner, 477 F. Supp. 648, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9495 (D.S.D. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
477 F. Supp. 648 p.655
659. Cited by:Orlando v. Wizel, 443 F. Supp. 744, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20323, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 886 (W.D. Ark. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
443 F. Supp. 744 p.750
660. Cited by:Remmick v. Barnes County, 435 F. Supp. 914, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14344, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7924, 19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1227 (D.N.D. 1977)
435 F. Supp. 914 p.916
661. Cited by:Henry v. Link, 408 F. Supp. 1204, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16120, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10992, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1470 (D.N.D. 1976)
408 F. Supp. 1204 p.1208
662. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:N. D. D., Inc. v. Faches, 385 F. Supp. 276, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11758 (N.D. Iowa 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
385 F. Supp. 276 p.279
663. Cited by:Century 21 Shows, Inc. v. Iowa, 346 F. Supp. 1050, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12348 (S.D. Iowa 1972)
346 F. Supp. 1050 p.1053
9TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
664. Cited by:Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13685 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
569 F.3d 1120 p.1124
665. Cited by:Ball v. Rodgers, 492 F.3d 1094, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16939 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
492 F.3d 1094 p.1104
666. Cited by:Winn v. Killian, 307 F.3d 1011, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20811, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10135, 2002 D.A.R. 11565 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
307 F.3d 1011 p.1017
Page 91
667. Cited by:Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2748, 2002 D.A.R. 3355, 52 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 744 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
285 F.3d 801 p.806
668. Cited by:Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 299, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 205, 99 D.A.R. 279 (9th Cir. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
165 F.3d 1234 p.1237
669. Cited by:Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22781, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6959, 97 D.A.R. 11282 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
121 F.3d 1372 p.1378
670. Cited by:Barajas v. Bermudez, 43 F.3d 1251, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36145, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9695, 94 D.A.R. 18079, 129 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33188 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
43 F.3d 1251 p.1256
671. Cited by:Brown v. Vasquez, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1998, 92 D.A.R. 2202 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
672. Cited by:
Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30183, 92 D.A.R. 10 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
952 F.2d 1164 p.1169
673. Cited by:Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa, 936 F.2d 466, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13144, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4928, 91 D.A.R. 7590, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40880, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 396 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
936 F.2d 466 p.468
674. Cited by:Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15006 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
834 F.2d 730 p.740834 F.2d 730 p.741
675. Cited by:Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12686, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 810, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P72008 (9th Cir. Nev. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
828 F.2d 1385 p.1393
Page 92
676. Cited by:Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23859 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1985)
775 F.2d 1381 p.1384
677. Cited by:Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of California, 739 F.2d 466, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19854 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
739 F.2d 466 p.468
678. Cited by:Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20856 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
740 F.2d 710 p.714
679. Cited by:WHITE MT. APACHE TRIBE v. WILLIAMS, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25725 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
680. Cited by:
Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 705 F.2d 1059, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28584 (9th Cir. 1983)705 F.2d 1059 p.1065
681. Followed by:Miofsky v. Superior Court of California, 703 F.2d 332, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27924 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
703 F.2d 332 p.335
682. Cited by:Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19856, 1982-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64711 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
682 F.2d 1267 p.1271682 F.2d 1267 p.1272
683. Cited by:Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21993 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982)
667 F.2d 811 p.815
684. Cited by:Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16011 (9th Cir. Cal. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
625 F.2d 240 p.245
685. Cited by:Tongol v. Usery, 601 F.2d 1091, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12696 (9th Cir. Cal. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
601 F.2d 1091 p.1099
Page 93
686. Cited by:Cleaver v. Wilcox, 499 F.2d 940, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8239 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
499 F.2d 940 p.943
687. Cited by:Cadena v. Perasso, 498 F.2d 383, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8456 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
498 F.2d 383 p.384
688. Cited by:Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, 495 F.2d 1, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9627 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
495 F.2d 1 p.10
689. Cited by:Francisco Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirby, 482 F.2d 481, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8706 (9th Cir. Cal. 1973)
482 F.2d 481 p.485
690. Distinguished by:Anderson v. Nemetz, 474 F.2d 814, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12042 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
474 F.2d 814 p.818474 F.2d 814 p.820
691. Explained by:Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6659 (9th Cir. Cal. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
469 F.2d 1159 p.1164469 F.2d 1159 p.1165
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
692. Cited by:AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dep't of Human Servs., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50837 (D. Haw. 2008)
567 F. Supp. 2d 1238 p.1249
693. Cited by:Clark v. City of Oakland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56813 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56813
694. Cited by:Tift v. Ball, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27457 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27457
Page 94
695. Cited by:Faurot v. Barton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78907 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78907
696. Cited by:Bank of Am., N.A. (USA) v. Miller, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9139 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9139
697. Cited by:Case v. Mont. State AG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90624 (D. Mont. Dec. 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90624
698. Cited by:Annunziato v. eMachines Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97020 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97020
699. Cited by:Cole v. Doe, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25648 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 p.1094
700. Cited by:Schillaci v. Peyton, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15527 (D. Haw. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
328 F. Supp. 2d 1103 p.1104
701. Cited by:Bank One Del. NA v. Wilens, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27379 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27379
702. Cited by:Southwest Adver., Inc. v. County of Clark, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8485 (D. Nev. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
202 F. Supp. 2d 1141 p.1142
703. Cited by:United States v. Furrow, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18489 (C.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
125 F. Supp. 2d 1178 p.1184125 F. Supp. 2d 1178 p.1185
Page 95
704. Cited by:Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Stach, 951 F. Supp. 1455, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 613, 62 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 1106, 97 D.A.R. 10384 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
951 F. Supp. 1455 p.1464
705. Cited by:Wu v. State Bar, 953 F. Supp. 315, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 617, 97 D.A.R. 1231 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
953 F. Supp. 315 p.322
706. Cited by:AT & T Management Pension Plan v. Tucker, 902 F. Supp. 1168, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14148, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2129 (C.D. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
902 F. Supp. 1168 p.1173
707. Cited by:Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F. Supp. 1068, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1494 (W.D. Wash. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
841 F. Supp. 1068 p.1083
708. Cited by:Kelly v. Intermountain Planned Parenthood, 828 F. Supp. 788, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21851 (D. Mont. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
828 F. Supp. 788 p.793828 F. Supp. 788 p.794
709. Cited by:Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Davis, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19146 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
710. Followed by:
Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 788 F. Supp. 1498, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11122, 92 D.A.R. 14324 (S.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
788 F. Supp. 1498 p.1510
711. Cited by:Riley v. Nevada Supreme Court, 763 F. Supp. 446, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777 (D. Nev. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
763 F. Supp. 446 p.450
712. Cited by:Riley v. Nevada Supreme Court, 763 F. Supp. 446, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5929 (D. Nev. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
713. Cited by:
Schroll v. Plunkett, 760 F. Supp. 1385, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4266 (D. Or. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 96
HN4, HN6, HN7760 F. Supp. 1385 p.1389
714. Cited by:Schroll v. Plunkett, 760 F. Supp. 1378, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18625 (D. Or. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
760 F. Supp. 1378 p.1383
715. Cited by:Harper v. Federal Land Bank, 692 F. Supp. 1244, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8789 (D. Or. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
692 F. Supp. 1244 p.1250
716. Cited by:Delahunty v. Hawaii, 677 F. Supp. 1052, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12413 (D. Haw. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
677 F. Supp. 1052 p.1056
717. Cited by:Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster, 636 F. Supp. 486, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22907, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34819, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1292 (N.D. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
636 F. Supp. 486 p.493
718. Cited by:Glendale Federal Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Fox, 481 F. Supp. 616, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11580 (C.D. Cal. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
481 F. Supp. 616 p.631
719. Cited by:United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870 (W.D. Wash. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
459 F. Supp. 1020 p.1030
720. Cited by:Kelly v. Gilbert, 437 F. Supp. 201, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12909, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 700 (D. Mont. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
437 F. Supp. 201 p.213
721. Cited by:Mirin v. Justices of Supreme Court, 415 F. Supp. 1178, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15154 (D. Nev. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
415 F. Supp. 1178 p.1198415 F. Supp. 1178 p.1199
722. Cited by:Niles v. Lowe, 407 F. Supp. 132, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16877 (D. Haw. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 97
HN4, HN6, HN7407 F. Supp. 132 p.134
723. Cited by:McCubbrey v. Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp., 71 F.R.D. 62, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15860, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1376 (N.D. Cal. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
71 F.R.D. 62 p.65
724. Cited by:Sar Industries, Inc. v. Monogram Industries, Inc., 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15717, 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60816 (C.D. Cal. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
725. Cited by:
Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 402 F. Supp. 95, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16100 (D. Haw. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
402 F. Supp. 95 p.102
726. Cited by:Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 372 F. Supp. 26, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12111 (C.D. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
372 F. Supp. 26 p.30
727. Cited by:United States v. Blackfeet Tribe of Blackfeet Indian Reservation, 369 F. Supp. 562, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10464 (D. Mont. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
369 F. Supp. 562 p.565
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
728. Cited by:State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Park (In re Si Yeon Park, Ltd.), 198 B.R. 956, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 937, 96 D.A.R. 12755, 29 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 570, 36 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1113 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
198 B.R. 956 p.967
729. Cited by:In re Sergio, Inc., 16 B.R. 898, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2379 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1981)
16 B.R. 898 p.915
10TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
730. Cited by:Tillman v. Johnson, 229 Fed. Appx. 813, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17595 (10th Cir. Kan. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
229 Fed. Appx. 813 p.813
731. Cited by:
Page 98
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201, 1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1595, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1322 (10th Cir. Kan. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
122 F.3d 1309 p.1325
732. Cited by:Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16846, 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2121 (10th Cir. Kan. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
59 F.3d 1058 p.1064
733. Cited by:Arnold v. Duchesne County, 26 F.3d 982, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 13107 (10th Cir. Utah 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
26 F.3d 982 p.986
734. Cited by:Horton v. Clark, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27773 (10th Cir. Nov. 15, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
735. Cited by:
Brooks v. Barbour Energy Corp., 804 F.2d 1144, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33213 (10th Cir. Okla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
804 F.2d 1144 p.1146
736. Explained by:First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Lawing, 731 F.2d 680, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23802 (10th Cir. Wyo. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
731 F.2d 680 p.682
737. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Phelps v. Kansas Supreme Court, 662 F.2d 649, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17155 (10th Cir. Kan. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
662 F.2d 649 p.655
738. Cited by:CCMS Pub. Co. v. Dooley-Maloof, Inc., 645 F.2d 33, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14689, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 517 (10th Cir. Okla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
645 F.2d 33 p.38
739. Cited by:Douglas--Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Posey, 486 F.2d 739, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7229 (10th Cir. Colo. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
486 F.2d 739 p.743
10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
740. Cited by:Ivory v. Werholtz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108885 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Page 99
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108885
741. Cited by:Libertarian Party of Kan. v. Shawnee County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39691 (D. Kan. May 30, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39691
742. Cited by:Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court Cases, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24245 (D. Utah 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
431 F. Supp. 2d 1159 p.1180
743. Cited by:Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001)
192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 p.1150
744. Cited by:Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24531 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24531
745. Cited by:Sanders v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24104 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
192 F. Supp. 2d 1094 p.1107
746. Cited by:Schnurr v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23781 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
189 F. Supp. 2d 1105 p.1121
747. Cited by:Trackwell v. Kan. Judicial Branch, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8301 (D. Kan. May 10, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8301
748. Cited by:Steffens v. Steffens, 955 F. Supp. 101, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6312 (D. Colo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
955 F. Supp. 101 p.103
749. Cited by:Goode v. Sumner County Comm'rs, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2649 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
750. Explained by, Cited by:
Page 100
Central Wyo. Law Assocs., P.C. v. Denhardt, 836 F. Supp. 793, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15623 (D. Wyo. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7
Explained by:836 F. Supp. 793 p.806
Cited by:836 F. Supp. 793 p.807836 F. Supp. 793 p.809
751. Cited by:Taliaferro v. Voth, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13894 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
752. Cited by:
Sipka v. Soet, 761 F. Supp. 761, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4990 (D. Kan. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
761 F. Supp. 761 p.764
753. Cited by:American Carriers, Inc. v. Baytree Investors, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7231 (D. Kan. June 10, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
754. Cited by:
Schaefer v. Wilcock, 676 F. Supp. 1092, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12067 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
676 F. Supp. 1092 p.1106
755. Cited by:Smith v. Eley, 675 F. Supp. 1301, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12069 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
675 F. Supp. 1301 p.1307
756. Cited by:Cooper v. Utah, 684 F. Supp. 1060, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13757 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
684 F. Supp. 1060 p.1065
757. Followed by:Parents of Child, Code No. 870901W v. Coker, 676 F. Supp. 1072, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12988 (E.D. Okla. 1987)
676 F. Supp. 1072 p.1075
758. Cited by:Parents of Child v. Group I, 676 F. Supp. 1072, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (E.D. Okla. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
759. Cited by:
Eggleston v. Colorado, 588 F. Supp. 1352, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24749 (D. Colo. 1984)588 F. Supp. 1352 p.1354
Page 101
760. Cited by:Winslow v. Leh, 577 F. Supp. 951, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20377 (D. Colo. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
577 F. Supp. 951 p.953
761. Cited by:Layton v. Swapp, 484 F. Supp. 958, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8235 (D. Utah 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
484 F. Supp. 958 p.960
762. Cited by:BROWN v. McCORMICK, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16632 (D. Kan. Mar. 30, 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
763. Cited by:In re Moesel, 89 B.R. 895, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1462, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P72626, 19 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 845 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
89 B.R. 895 p.896
11TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
764. Cited by:Chavis v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 300 F.3d 1288, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15767, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 876, 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41164 (11th Cir. Ga. 2002)
300 F.3d 1288 p.1293
765. Cited by:Pompey v. Broward County, 95 F.3d 1543, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25009, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 420 (11th Cir. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
95 F.3d 1543 p.1547
766. Cited by:NLRB v. Florida, Dep't of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 868 F.2d 391, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3300, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4790, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3018, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11043 (11th Cir. Fla. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
868 F.2d 391 p.397
767. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 851 F.2d 1321, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11912 (11th Cir. Ala. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
851 F.2d 1321 p.1339
768. Cited by:In re Temple, 851 F.2d 1269, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10725, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 987 (11th Cir.
Page 102
Ga. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7851 F.2d 1269 p.1272
769. Cited by:Gjellum v. Birmingham, 829 F.2d 1056, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13746 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
829 F.2d 1056 p.1065
770. Cited by:First Alabama Bank, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc., 825 F.2d 1475, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11222 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
825 F.2d 1475 p.1482
771. Cited by:Fetner v. Roanoke, 813 F.2d 1183, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
813 F.2d 1183 p.1184
772. Cited by:Gilmere v. Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23839 (11th Cir. Ga. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
774 F.2d 1495 p.1498
773. Cited by:Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, Div. of United States Steel Corp., 695 F.2d 1314, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31353 (11th Cir. Fla. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
695 F.2d 1314 p.1318
774. Cited by:Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19228 (11th Cir. Ala. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
676 F.2d 524 p.525
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
775. Cited by:English v. Laidler, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88063 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88063
776. Cited by:Frith v. Baldwin County Comm'n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26679 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26679
777. Cited by:
Page 103
Johnson v. City of Mobile, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56262 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56262
778. Cited by:Casale v. Tillman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54226 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54226
779. Cited by:Endsley v. City of Macon, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42941 (M.D. Ga. June 2, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42941
780. Cited by:O'Neal Homes, Inc. v. City of Orange Beach, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39773 (S.D. Ala. May 14, 2008)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39773
781. Cited by:Turbeville v. Office of Child Support Enforcement of Fla. Dep't of Revenue, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68433 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68433
782. Cited by:Stoddard v. Hawsey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54544 (S.D. Ala. July 25, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54544
783. Cited by:Jones v. Allen, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28415 (M.D. Ala. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
483 F. Supp. 2d 1142 p.1148
784. Cited by:Jenkins v. Dekalb County, 242 F.R.D. 652, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18300 (N.D. Ga. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
242 F.R.D. 652 p.658
785. Cited by:Royster v. Florida, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8373 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8373
786. Cited by:Wimberly v. Ga. Diagnostic Ctr. & Second Judicial Circuit, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74715 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74715
Page 104
787. Cited by:Bank of Am., N.A. v. McCann, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61993, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 44 (N.D. Fla. 2006)
444 F. Supp. 2d 1227 p.1231
788. Cited by:Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31109, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 627 (S.D. Fla. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
430 F. Supp. 2d 1296 p.1327
789. Cited by:Foxworth v. Kia Motors Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18580 (N.D. Fla. May 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18580
790. Cited by:Payne v. Dekalb County, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29226 (N.D. Ga. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
414 F. Supp. 2d 1158 p.1169
791. Cited by:Niziol v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Pasco County, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21386 (M.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
240 F. Supp. 2d 1194 p.1203
792. Cited by:Siegel v. LePore, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16305 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2000)
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16305
793. Cited by:Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13235 (M.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
111 F. Supp. 2d 1241 p.1244
794. Cited by:Chandler v. James, 985 F. Supp. 1068, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19010 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
985 F. Supp. 1068 p.1071
795. Cited by:Transouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 975 F. Supp. 1305, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13051 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
975 F. Supp. 1305 p.1311
Page 105
796. Cited by:Alabama Parents for Choices v. James, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
797. Cited by:
Wolfe v. Safecard Servs., 873 F. Supp. 648, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 608, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 582 (S.D. Fla. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
873 F. Supp. 648 p.649873 F. Supp. 648 p.650
798. Cited by:Cahela v. Bernard, 155 F.R.D. 233 (N.D. Ga. 1994)
155 F.R.D. 233 p.339
799. Cited by:Gersten v. Rundle, 833 F. Supp. 906, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13589, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 427 (S.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
833 F. Supp. 906 p.910
800. Cited by:Mannings v. School Bd., 816 F. Supp. 714, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2494, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 25 (M.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
816 F. Supp. 714 p.715
801. Cited by:Allstate Ins. Co. v. Preston, 842 F. Supp. 1441, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22138 (S.D. Fla. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
802. Cited by:
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Preston, 842 F. Supp. 1441, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22137 (S.D. Fla. 1992)842 F. Supp. 1441 p.1445
803. Cited by:Page v. Grady, 788 F. Supp. 1207, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4986 (N.D. Ga. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
788 F. Supp. 1207 p.1210
804. Cited by:Williams v. Adkinson, 792 F. Supp. 755, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6344 (M.D. Ala. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
792 F. Supp. 755 p.761
805. Cited by:Westin v. McDaniel, 760 F. Supp. 1563, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4199 (M.D. Ga. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
760 F. Supp. 1563 p.1566
Page 106
806. Cited by:Liedel v. Juvenile Court of Madison County, 707 F. Supp. 486, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2248 (N.D. Ala. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
707 F. Supp. 486 p.493
807. Cited by:LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10598 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
662 F. Supp. 647 p.712
808. Cited by:Safeco Ins. Co. v. Norris & Hirshberg, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 712, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23324 (N.D. Ga. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
640 F. Supp. 712 p.714
809. Cited by:COMPASS INS. CO. v. CATALINA HOMES, INC., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17505 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
810. Cited by:
L.M.E., Inc. v. Hollywood, 605 F. Supp. 185, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21417 (S.D. Fla. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
605 F. Supp. 185 p.188
811. Cited by:Stone Mountain Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt, 570 F. Supp. 238, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15846 (N.D. Ga. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
570 F. Supp. 238 p.245
812. Cited by:National Carloading Corp. v. Shulman, 570 F. Supp. 3, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16446 (N.D. Ga. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
570 F. Supp. 3 p.4
813. Cited by:Heath v. Hialeah, 560 F. Supp. 840, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17979 (S.D. Fla. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
560 F. Supp. 840 p.844
814. Cited by:Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F. Supp. 229, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16866 (S.D. Fla. 1981)
525 F. Supp. 229 p.231
815. Cited by:Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F. Supp. 186, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18480, 1983 A.M.C. 966 (S.D. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
525 F. Supp. 186 p.193
Page 107
816. Cited by:Brown v. Morgan County, 518 F. Supp. 661, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14880 (N.D. Ala. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7
518 F. Supp. 661 p.665
817. Cited by:Scherer v. Davis, 543 F. Supp. 4, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18443 (N.D. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
543 F. Supp. 4 p.13
818. Cited by:Senco of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 473 F. Supp. 902, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526 (M.D. Fla. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
473 F. Supp. 902 p.905
819. Cited by:Craig v. Carson, 449 F. Supp. 385, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18335 (M.D. Fla. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7
449 F. Supp. 385 p.390
820. Cited by:Poirier v. Hodges, 445 F. Supp. 838, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19758 (M.D. Fla. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
445 F. Supp. 838 p.842
821. Cited by:Wall v. American Optometric Asso., 379 F. Supp. 175, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8896 (N.D. Ga. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
379 F. Supp. 175 p.182
822. Cited by:General Corp. v. Sweeton, 365 F. Supp. 1182, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11441 (N.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
365 F. Supp. 1182 p.1184
823. Cited by:Speight v. Slaton, 356 F. Supp. 1101, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14809 (N.D. Ga. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
356 F. Supp. 1101 p.1103
824. Cited by:Davy v. Sullivan, 354 F. Supp. 1320, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14875, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1157 (M.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
354 F. Supp. 1320 p.1324
Page 108
825. Cited by:Abbott v. Thetford, 354 F. Supp. 1280, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15183 (M.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
354 F. Supp. 1280 p.1286
826. Cited by:Anderson v. Dean, 354 F. Supp. 639, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14854 (N.D. Ga. 1973)
354 F. Supp. 639 p.642
827. Cited by:Gilliard v. Carson, 348 F. Supp. 757, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11773 (M.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
348 F. Supp. 757 p.762
828. Cited by:Wiley v. Pomerance, 347 F. Supp. 188, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12286 (S.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
347 F. Supp. 188 p.190
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
829. Cited by:Rainwater v. Alabama (In re Rainwater), 233 B.R. 126, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
233 B.R. 126 p.152
D.C. CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
830. Cited by:Samuels v. District of Columbia, 770 F.2d 184, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 128, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21078 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
770 F.2d 184 p.194
831. Cited by:United States v. District of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802, 210 U.S. App. D.C. 87, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12455, 16 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1804, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20595 (1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7
654 F.2d 802 p.809
832. Cited by:Brown v. O'Brien, 469 F.2d 563, 152 U.S. App. D.C. 157, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8617 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7
469 F.2d 563 p.574
D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURT
833. Cited by:
Page 109
Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court of the Dist. of Columbia, 539 F. Supp. 2d 432, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24741 (D.D.C. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
539 F. Supp. 2d 432 p.434
834. Cited by:In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 659, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2125 (D.D.C. 1987)
655 F. Supp. 659 p.663
U.S. TAX COURT
835. Cited by:Bent v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 236, 1986 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 74, 87 T.C. No. 15 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
87 T.C. 236 p.246
IRS AGENCY MATERIALS
836. Cited by:Litig. Guide. Mem., 1993 LGM LEXIS 11 (I.R.S. 1993)
1993 LGM LEXIS 11
OTHER FEDERAL DECISIONS
837. Cited by:122 F.R.D. 89, 122 F.R.D. 89
122 F.R.D. 89 p.96
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
838. Cited by:Vest v. Schafer, 757 P.2d 588, 1988 Alas. LEXIS 90, Alaska Adv. 3346 (Alaska 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
757 P.2d 588 p.592
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
839. Cited by:Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 82 Cal. App. 3d 259, 147 Cal. Rptr. 1, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1672 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
82 Cal. App. 3d 259 p.270147 Cal. Rptr. 1 p.7
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
840. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Middleton v. Hartman, 45 P.3d 721, 2002 Colo. LEXIS 294, 31 Colo. Law. No. 6 251, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34539, 7 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1513 (Colo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
45 P.3d 721 p.736
Page 110
841. Cited by:Board of County Comm'rs v. Sundheim, 926 P.2d 545, 1996 Colo. LEXIS 567, 25 Colo. Law. No. 12 270, 20 Colo. J. 1539 (Colo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
926 P.2d 545 p.54820 Colo. J. 1539 p.1543
842. Cited by:Boulder Valley School Dist. R-2 v. Price, 805 P.2d 1085, 1991 Colo. LEXIS 42, 15 Brief Times Rptr. 103 (Colo. 1991)
805 P.2d 1085 p.1094
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
843. Cited by:Brown v. Davidson, 192 P.3d 415, 2006 Colo. App. LEXIS 1015 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006)
192 P.3d 415 p.418
IDAHO SUPREME COURT
844. Cited by:Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 796 P.2d 87, 1990 Ida. LEXIS 87 (Idaho 1990)
118 Idaho 210 p.221796 P.2d 87 p.98
OTHER INDIANA DECISIONS
845. Cited by:Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 583 N.E.2d 214, 1991 Ind. Tax LEXIS 12 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
583 N.E.2d 214 p.223
LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS
846. Cited by:Ascani v. Hughes, 470 So. 2d 207, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8805 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985)
470 So. 2d 207 p.210
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
847. Cited by:Smith v. State, Dep't of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540, 410 N.W.2d 749, 1987 Mich. LEXIS 8323 (1987)
428 Mich. 540 p.579410 N.W.2d 749 p.766
848. Cited by:In re Weldon, 397 Mich. 225, 244 N.W.2d 827, 1976 Mich. LEXIS 302 (1976)
Page 111
397 Mich. 225 p.312244 N.W.2d 827 p.860
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
849. Cited by:Myers v. City of McComb, 943 So. 2d 1, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 537 (Miss. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
943 So. 2d 1 p.10
MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS
850. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:E. . State Hosp. v. Callens, 2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 531 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2001)
2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 531
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
851. Cited by:Shapiro v. Columbia Union Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 576 S.W.2d 310, 1978 Mo. LEXIS 336 (Mo. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
576 S.W.2d 310 p.316
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
852. Cited by:General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 279 N.J. Super. 449, 653 A.2d 568, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 69 (App.Div. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
279 N.J. Super. 449 p.461653 A.2d 568 p.574
853. Cited by:In re Kaplan, 178 N.J. Super. 487, 429 A.2d 590, 1981 N.J. Super. LEXIS 541 (App.Div. 1981)
178 N.J. Super. 487 p.498429 A.2d 590 p.596
NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS
854. Cited by:Estate of Gutierrez v. Albuquerque Police Dep't, 104 N.M. 111, 717 P.2d 87, 1986 N.M. App. LEXIS 590 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
104 N.M. 111 p.116717 P.2d 87 p.92
OTHER NEW YORK DECISIONS
855. Cited by:Brown v. Albion, 128 Misc. 2d 586, 490 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2961 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985)
Page 112
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2128 Misc. 2d 586 p.589490 N.Y.S.2d 958 p.961
856. Cited by:Brody v. Leamy, 90 Misc. 2d 1, 393 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7
90 Misc. 2d 1 p.11393 N.Y.S.2d 243 p.251
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT
857. Cited by:McLin v. Trimble, 1990 OK 74, 795 P.2d 1035, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 64, 61 Okla. B.J. 1633 (Okla. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
795 P.2d 1035 p.1036
OREGON SUPREME COURT
858. Cited by:Rogers v. Saylor, 306 Ore. 267, 760 P.2d 232, 1988 Ore. LEXIS 440 (1988)
306 Ore. 267 p.283760 P.2d 232 p.241
TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
859. Cited by:Saenz v. Lackey, 522 S.W.2d 237, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 2607, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10145 (Tex. Civ. App. Corpus Christi 1975)
522 S.W.2d 237 p.241
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
860. Cited by:Purse Seine Vessel Owners Asso. v. Moos, 88 Wn.2d 799, 567 P.2d 205, 1977 Wash. LEXIS 808, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20091 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6
88 Wn.2d 799 p.814567 P.2d 205 p.213
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS
861. Cited by:Fondren v. Klickitat County, 79 Wn. App. 850, 905 P.2d 928, 1995 Wash. App. LEXIS 469 (1995)
79 Wn. App. 850 p.860905 P.2d 928 p.933
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
Page 113
862. Cited by:Shaw v. Leatherberry, 2005 WI 163, 286 Wis. 2d 380, 706 N.W.2d 299, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 949 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2005 WI 163286 Wis. 2d 380 p.399706 N.W.2d 299 p.309
863. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:State ex rel. Hass v. Wis. Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128, 248 Wis. 2d 634, 636 N.W.2d 707, 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 1600 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
2001 WI 128248 Wis. 2d 634 p.649636 N.W.2d 707 p.715
864. Cited by:Hanlon v. Town of Milton, 2000 WI 61, 235 Wis. 2d 597, 612 N.W.2d 44, 2000 Wisc. LEXIS 402 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2000 WI 61235 Wis. 2d 597 p.607612 N.W.2d 44 p.49
865. Cited by:Terry v. Kolski, 78 Wis. 2d 475, 254 N.W.2d 704, 1977 Wisc. LEXIS 1260 (Wis. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
78 Wis. 2d 475 p.508254 N.W.2d 704 p.718
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
866. Cited by:State ex rel. Ledford v. Circuit Court, 228 Wis. 2d 768, 599 N.W.2d 45, 1999 Wisc. App. LEXIS 626 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
228 Wis. 2d 768 p.773599 N.W.2d 45 p.47
867. Cited by:Hanson v. Madison Service Corp., 150 Wis. 2d 828, 443 N.W.2d 315, 1989 Wisc. App. LEXIS 511 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7
150 Wis. 2d 828 p.858443 N.W.2d 315 p.327
PUERTO RICO SUPREME COURT
868. Cited by:Perez Aldarondo v. Tribunal Superior, 2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 1, 102 P.R. Dec. 1, 1974 PR Sup. LEXIS 219 (P.R. 1974)
102 P.R. Dec. 1 p.11
Page 114
PUERTO RICO
869. Cited by:2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14
2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14 p.14
ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 3 Citing Statutes )
870. 28 U.S.C. sec. 2283
871. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983
872. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985 LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 461 Citing References )
873. COMMENT: THE USE OF 1983 AS A REMEDY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT: WHY IT IS NECESSARY AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS, 72 Alb. L. Rev. 461 (2009)
72 Alb. L. Rev. 461 p.461
874. ARTICLE: SECTION II: Summary Adjudication Methods in United States Civil Procedure, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 229 (1998)
875. ARTICLE: The Rehnquist Court, Legal Process Theory, and McCleskey v. Kemp, 28 Am. J. Crim. L. 1
(2000)
876. INTERNATIONAL DECISION: United States v. Locke. 120 S.Ct. 1135. Supreme Court of the United States, March 6, 2000, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 745 (2000)
877. ARTICLE: 3ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS AGAINST STATES: ALDEN AND FEDERALISM
NON-SENSE, 49 Am. U.L. Rev. 611 (2000)49 Am. U.L. Rev. 611 p.611
878. NOTE: PULLIAM V. ALLEN: HARMONIZING JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES WITH JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. *, 34 Am. U.L. Rev. 523 (1985)
879. NOTE: THE EXTENSION OF COMITY: FAIR ASSESSMENT IN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION v.
McNARY., 32 Am. U.L. Rev. 1123 (1983)
880. ARTICLE: Sanctioning a Tyranny: The Diminishment of Ex parte Young, Expansion of Hans Immunity, and Denial of Indian Rights in Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 786 (1999)
881. NOTE: Under What Circumstances did Congress Intend to Award Punitive Damages for Victims of
Unlawful Intentional Discrimination under Title VII?, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1269 (1999)40 B.C. L. Rev. 1269 p.1269
882. ARTICLE: THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION: RETHINKING AN UNSETTLED FEDERAL COURTS DOCTRINE *, 36 B.C. L. Rev. 669 (1995)
883. NOTE: REBALANCING FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY: THE OFFENSIVE USE OF COLLATERAL
Page 115
ESTOPPEL IN 1983 ACTIONS, 89 B.U.L. Rev. 1305 (2009)89 B.U.L. Rev. 1305 p.1305
884. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983'S "AND LAWS" CLAUSE RUN AMOK: CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES IN CELLULAR FACILITIES SITING DISPUTES, 81 B.U.L. Rev. 735 (2001)
81 B.U.L. Rev. 735 p.735
885. ARTICLE: THE NEWEST FRONTIER OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: REMOVAL UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 773 (2000)
80 B.U.L. Rev. 773 p.773
886. ARTICLE: DUELING CLASS ACTIONS, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 (2000)80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 p.461
887. COMMENT: WHY PARITY MATTERS., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 651 (1991)
888. ARTICLE: ENDING THE PARITY DEBATE., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 593 (1991)
889. ARTICLE: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TORTS AND THE TAKINGS CLAUSE: FEDERALISM AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY +., 68 B.U.L. Rev. 277 (1988)
890. NOTE: PARRATT v. TAYLOR * REVISITED: DEFINING THE ADEQUATE REMEDY REQUIREMENT.,
65 B.U.L. Rev. 607 (1985)65 B.U.L. Rev. 607 p.607
891. NOTE: SECTION 1983 CHALLENGES TO STATE CONVICTIONS BY PERSONS NOT IN CUSTODY., 64 B.U.L. Rev. 683 (1984)
64 B.U.L. Rev. 683 p.683
892. ARTICLE: Intrinsic Limits of Congress' Power Regarding the Judicial Branch, 1999 BYU L. Rev. 75 (1999)
893. COMMENT: Antisuit Injunctions Under the Complex Litigation Proposal: Harmonizing the Sirens' Song of
Efficiency and Fairness with the Hymn of Judicial Federalism and Comity, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 1041 (1995)
894. COMMENT: Arthur Miller's Death of a Doctrine or Will the Federal Courts Abstain from Abstaining? The Complex Litigation Recommendations' Impact on the Abstention Doctrines, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 961 (1995)
895. ARTICLE: Antisuit Injunction and Notice of Intervention and Preclusion: Complementary Devices to
Prevent Duplicative Litigation, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 925 (1995)
896. ARTICLE: The ALI, Supplemental Jurisdiction, and the Federal Constitutional Case, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 819 (1995)
897. ARTICLE: Parallel Litigation *, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 769 (1999)
898. ARTICLE: *42<**IC=109**>USC<**IC=109**>1983 *001983 The Vehicle for ProtectingPublic
Employees' Constitutional Rights *, 47 Baylor L. Rev. 619 (1995)
Page 116
899. ARTICLE: Title VII Arbitration, 16 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 209 (1995)
900. ARTICLE: The Sovereign Immunity of States in Their Own Courts, 37 Brandeis L.J. 319 (1999)37 Brandeis L.J. 319 p.319
901. NOTE: Dismissing the Foster Children The Eleventh Circuit's Misapplication and Improper Expansion of the Younger Abstention Doctrine in Bonnie L. v. Bush *, 70 Brook. L. Rev. 635 (2004)
70 Brook. L. Rev. 635 p.635
902. ARTICLE: Facilitating Welfare Rights Class Action Litigation: PUTTING DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO WORK *, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 281 (2003)
69 Brook. L. Rev. 281 p.281
903. ARTICLE: HOW THE SUPREME COURT IS DEALING WITH PRECEDENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES *, 62 Brook. L. Rev. 973 (1996)
62 Brook. L. Rev. 973 p.973
904. ARTICLE: BEYOND PARITY: SECTION 1983 AND THE STATE COURTS., 54 Brook. L. Rev. 1057 (1989)
905. THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW -- 1983-1984 TERM: PART I: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BEFORE A NEUTRAL JUDGE: FEDERALISM TIPS THE BALANCE AGAINST STATE HABEAS PETITIONERS. Johnson v. Scully. *, 51 Brook. L. Rev. 841 (1985)
906. NOTE: MECHANICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE CERTIFICATION OF
MANDATORY MULTISTATE MASS TORT CLASS ACTIONS UNDER RULE 23., 49 Brook. L. Rev. 517 (1983)
907. ARTICLE: Restricting Prisoners' Equal Access to the Federal Courts: The Three Strikes Provision of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act and Substantive Equal Protection, 49 Buff. L. Rev. 1099 (2001)49 Buff. L. Rev. 1099 p.1099
908. COMMENT: Federal Court Abstention in Civil Rights Cases: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the New Doctrine of Civil Rights Abstention, 42 Buff. L. Rev. 501 (1994)
42 Buff. L. Rev. 501 p.501
909. Article: The Federal Courts as a Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 95 (2009)
97 Cal. L. Rev. 95 p.95
910. ARTICLE: Structural Reform Revisited, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 1387 (2007)95 Cal. L. Rev. 1387 p.1387
911. Pendent Jurisdiction and the Eleventh Amendment., 75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 (1987)75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 p.155
912. ARTICLE: Rediscovering "One Constitutional Case": Procedural Rules and the Rejection of the Gibbs Test
Page 117
for Supplemental Jurisdiction., 71 Cal. L. Rev. 1401 (1983)
913. 71 Cal. L. Rev. 1399, 71 Cal. L. Rev. 139971 Cal. L. Rev. 1399 p.1406
914. 69 Cal. L. Rev. 37769 Cal. L. Rev. 377 p.418
915. 69 Cal. L. Rev. 18969 Cal. L. Rev. 189 p.193
916. ARTICLE: MORE STORIES OF JURISDICTION-STRIPPING AND EXECUTIVE POWER: INTERPRETING THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (PLRA), 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 291 (2007)
917. NOTE: Federal Rights, Federal Forum: Section 1983 Challenges to State Convictions in Federal Court, 51
Case W. Res. L. Rev. 353 (2000)51 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 353 p.353
918. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers *: The Humble and the Treasonous: Judge-Made Jurisdiction Law, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1035 (1990)
919. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers
*: Judge-Made Abstention and the Fashionable Art of "Democracy Bashing" n1, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1023 (1990)
920. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers
*: "You Can Lead a Horse to Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal to Allow the Exercise of Original Jurisdiction Conferred by Congress, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 997 (1990)
921. THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION: A SYMPOSIUM:
Thinking about Habeas Corpus, 37 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 748 (1987)
922. NOTE: Parens Patriae Suits by a State Under, 33 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 431 (1983)
923. NOTE: PULLIAM v. ALLEN: DELINEATING THE IMMUNITY OF JUDGES FROM PROSPECTIVE RELIEF., 34 Cath. U.L. Rev. 829 (1985)
924. SYMPOSIUM ON SECTION 1983: STUDENT NOTES AND COMMENTS: HOW FAR IS TOO FAR:
ANALYZING THE COLLATERAL LAW APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT SECTION 1983 LITIGATION, 72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 875 (1997)
72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 875 p.875
925. STUDEN NOTE AND COMMENT: THE DIFFUSION OF DUE PROCESS IN CAPITAL CASES OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE AFTER HERRERA, 70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1391 (1995)
70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1391 p.1391
926. NOTE: AN APPLICATION OF TO SECTION 1983 ACTIONS: DOES RULE 26(A)(1) VIOLATE THE RULES ENABLING ACT?, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 115 (1995)
Page 118
927. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983 LITIGATION IN THE OHIO COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION FOR OHIO LAWYERS AND JUDGES, 41 Clev. St. L. Rev. 407 (1993)
928. Article: "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings": The Procedural Nature of Comprehensive-Remedial-Scheme
Preclusion in 1983 Claims, 42 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 415 (2009)
929. NOTE: FROM THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL TORT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 643 (2006)
106 Colum. L. Rev. 643 p.643
930. ARTICLE: UNDER THE LAW OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION: ALLOCATING CASES BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1211 (2004)
104 Colum. L. Rev. 1211 p.1211
931. ARTICLE: MADISONIAN EQUAL PROTECTION, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 837 (2004)104 Colum. L. Rev. 837 p.837
932. NOTE: THE SENTENCES THAT BIND (THE STATES), 103 Colum. L. Rev. 969 (2003)103 Colum. L. Rev. 969 p.969
933. ARTICLE: SQUARE PEGS AND ROUND HOLES: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 833 (2003)
103 Colum. L. Rev. 833 p.833
934. RESPONSE: HABEAS CORPUS, RELITIGATION, AND THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 888 (1998)
98 Colum. L. Rev. 888 p.919
935. ARTICLE: "SOME EFFECTUAL POWER": THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF DECISIONMAKING REQUIRED OF ARTICLE III COURTS, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 696 (1998)
98 Colum. L. Rev. 696 p.781
936. ARTICLE: EQUAL CITIZENS OF EQUAL AND TERRITORIAL STATES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF CHOICE OF LAW., 92 Colum. L. Rev. 249 (1992)
92 Colum. L. Rev. 249 p.333
937. NOTE: THE PREEMPTION DIMENSION OF ABSTENTION., 89 Colum. L. Rev. 310 (1989)
938. ARTICLE: PROCEDURAL COMMON LAW, FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL POLICY, AND ABANDONMENT OF THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE., 86 Colum. L. Rev. 1291 (1986)
86 Colum. L. Rev. 1291 p.1319
939. BOOK REVIEW: THE FEDERAL COURTS, JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ANALYZING LEGAL DOCTRINE. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. BY Richard A. Posner., 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1378 (1985)
Page 119
940. NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED CONDUCT OF STATE OFFICIALS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT: HUDSON V. PALMER AND THE RESURRECTION OF DEAD DOCTRINES., 85 Colum. L. Rev. 837 (1985)
941. NOTE: Preclusion of Section 1983 Causes of Action by Comprehensive Statutory Remedial Schemes, 82
Colum. L. Rev. 1183 (1982)
942. 78 Colum. L. Rev. 33078 Colum. L. Rev. 330 p.331
943. 78 Colum. L. Rev. 7578 Colum. L. Rev. 75 p.95
944. ARTICLE: Alternative State Remedies in Constitutional Torts, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 (2008)40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 p.723
945. NOTE: The Forgotten Empire: Pre-Civil War Southern Imperialism, 36 Conn. L. Rev. 225 (2003)36 Conn. L. Rev. 225 p.225
946. ARTICLE: The Unhappy History of Civil Rights Legislation, Fifty Years Later, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 981 (2002)34 Conn. L. Rev. 981 p.981
947. ARTICLE: Remedies for Unconstitutional State Taxes, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 73 (2000)32 Conn. L. Rev. 73 p.73
948. ARTICLE: The Anticommandeering Principle and Congress's Power to Direct State Judicial Action: Congress's Power to Compel State Courts to Answer Certified Questions of State Law, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 649 (1999)
949. NOTE AND COMMENT: From Animal House to No House: Legal Rights of the Banned Fraternity, 28
Conn. L. Rev. 167 (1995)
950. BOOK REVIEW: CHALLENGING THE HART AND WECHSLER PARADIGM, 27 Conn. L. Rev. 833 (1995)
951. Article: Separation of Powers and the Exercise of Concurrent Constitutional Authority in the Bivens
Context, 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 171 (2009)
952. NOTE: PRISONER LITIGATION AND THE MISTAKE OF JENKINS V. HAUBERT, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 140 (2000)
86 Cornell L. Rev. 140 p.140
953. NOTE: SLOGAN OR SUBSTANCE? UNDERSTANDING "OUR FEDERALISM" AND YOUNGER ABSTENTION., 73 Cornell L. Rev. 852 (1988)
954. ARTICLE: FLOWCHARTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT., 72 Cornell L. Rev. 936 (1987)
72 Cornell L. Rev. 936 p.988
Page 120
955. 71 Cornell L. Rev. 733, 71 Cornell L. Rev. 73371 Cornell L. Rev. 733 p.818
956. ARTICLE: INTERJURISDICTIONAL PRECLUSION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND FEDERAL COMMON LAW: A GENERAL APPROACH. $(Part 2 of 2$), 71 Cornell L. Rev. 733 (1986)
957. 67 Cornell L. Rev. 482
67 Cornell L. Rev. 482 p.493
958. 63 Cornell L. Rev. 46363 Cornell L. Rev. 463 p.466
959. 63 Cornell L. Rev. 6563 Cornell L. Rev. 65 p.89
960. 62 Cornell L. Rev. 66362 Cornell L. Rev. 663 p.674
961. ARTICLE: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: JUSTICE BRADLEY'S TWENTIETH CENTURY LEGACY, 29 Cumb. L. Rev. 143 (1998)
962. SYMPOSIUM: THE FEDERALIZATION OF STATE LAW: ARTICLE: FEDERALIZATION: A CRITICAL
OVERVIEW, 44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 (1995)44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 p.719
963. ARTICLE: "PUN'S OIL SUES TOXICO": A COMEDY OF ERRORS IN (AT LEAST) FOUR ACTS. *, 11 Del. J. Corp. L. 345 (1987)
964. SURVEY: Section 1983 and the Tort of Malicious Prosecution: A Tenth Circuit Historical Analysis, 82
Denv. U.L. Rev. 499 (2005)82 Denv. U.L. Rev. 499 p.499
965. ARTICLE: The Integration of State Private Law in Federalized Fields of Law: The Case for Federal Common Law, 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 207 (1996)
966. ARTICLE: Habeas Corpus: The No-Longer Great Writ, 98 Dick. L. Rev. 557 (1994)
967. 54 Disp. Resol. J. No. 4 48
54 Disp. Resol. J. No. 4 48 p.51
968. ARTICLE: HAS THE SEDUCTIVE SIREN OF JUDICIAL FRUGALITY CEASED TO SING?: DATAFLUX AND ITS FAMILY TREE, 53 Drake L. Rev. 281 (2005)
53 Drake L. Rev. 281 p.281
Page 121
969. FEATURED SPEAKERS: CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION: A RESPONSE TO GARVEY, 47 Drake L. Rev. 19 (1998)
970. ARTICLE: A REASSESSMENT OF THE YOUNGER DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF RECONSTRUCTION., 1983 Duke L.J. 987 (1983)
971. NOTE: THE PATH TO PRECLUSION: FEDERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST NATIONWIDE CLASSES IN STATE COURT, 54 Duke L.J. 221 (2004)
54 Duke L.J. 221 p.221
972. RECENT DECISION: Cooperation Between Law Enforcement and State Hospitals in Warrantless, Nonconsensual Drug Testing of Maternity Patients is Unconstitutional Under the Fourth Amendment: Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 743 (2002)
40 Duq. L. Rev. 743 p.743
973. ARTICLE: The Privatization of the Civil Commitment Process and the State Action Doctrine: Have the Mentally Ill Been Systematically Stripped of Their Fourteenth Amendment Rights?, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 1 (2001)
40 Duq. L. Rev. 1 p.1
974. COMMENT: THE CASE OF EXZAVIOUS LEE GIBSON: A GEORGIA COURT'S (CONSTITUTIONAL?) DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT, 47 Emory L.J. 1079 (1998)
975. THE FINAL FRONTIER OF YOUNGER ABSTENTION: THE JUDICIARY'S ABDICATION OF THE
FEDERAL COURT REMOVAL JURISDICTION STATUTE, 31 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 193 (2003)31 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 193 p.193
976. COMMENT: THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE: FEDERALISM, UNIFORMITY, EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, 16 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 365 (1988)
977. ARTICLE: THE SUPREME COURT, THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, AND THE USE AND
ABUSE OF FEDERALISM, 71 Fordham L. Rev. 57 (2002)71 Fordham L. Rev. 57 p.57
978. SYMPOSIUM: BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ITS LEGACY: A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL: PANEL II: CIVIL RIGHTS AND EDUCATION AFTER BROWN. THE OVERTHROW OF MONROE v. PAPE: A CHAPTER IN THE LEGACY OF THURGOOD MARSHALL., 61 Fordham L. Rev. 39 (1992)
979. ARTICLE: EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE PROCEDURAL BAR DOCTRINE IN FEDERAL HABEAS
CORPUS., 59 Fordham L. Rev. 737 (1991)
980. ARTICLE: MAKING YOUNGER CIVIL: THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL COURT DEFERENCE TO STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR STRAVITZ., 58 Fordham L. Rev. 173 (1989)
981. ARTICLE: YOUNGER ABSTENTION REACHES A CIVIL MATURITY: PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC.,
57 Fordham L. Rev. 997 (1989)
982. NOTE: LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER 1415 OF THE EDUCATION FOR
Page 122
ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975., 56 Fordham L. Rev. 725 (1988)
983. NOTE: THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF ARBITRAL DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL SECURITIES LITIGATION., 55 Fordham L. Rev. 655 (1987)
984. NOTE: IMMUNITY DOCTRINES AND EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS OF JUDGES., 55 Fordham L. Rev.
621 (1987)
985. NOTE: STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CIVIL RICO ACTIONS AFTER WILSON v. GARCIA., 55 Fordham L. Rev. 529 (1987)
986. NOTE: WILSON v. GARCIA AND STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS:
RETROACTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION?, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 363 (1986)
987. ARTICLE: EVOLUTION OF THE "SPECIES OF TORT LIABILITY" CREATED BY CAN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT BE SAVED FROM EXTINCTION?, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (1986)
988. NOTE: CRIMINAL RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS AS DEBTS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CODE., 54
Fordham L. Rev. 869 (1986)
989. COMMENT: TEXACO INC. v. PENNZOIL CO.: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL COURT POWER OVER STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 54 Fordham L. Rev. 767 (1986)
990. NOTE: DUE PROCESS: APPLICATION OF THE PARRATT DOCTRINE TO RANDOM AND
UNAUTHORIZED DEPRIVATIONS OF LIFE AND LIBERTY., 52 Fordham L. Rev. 887 (1984)
991. ARTICLE: EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT: WHAT A PLAINTIFF "KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW" BASED ON OFFICIALS' STATEMENTS AND MEDIA COVERAGE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT FOR NOTICE OF A 1983 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY CLAIM, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 505 (2000)
992. FELIX FRANKFURTER: THE ARCHITECT OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 27 Ga. L. Rev. 697 (1993)
993. ARTICLE: Is Disparity a Problem?, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988)
994. FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS:
ARTICLE: Why Professor Redish is Wrong About Abstention, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1097 (1985)
995. FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS: ARTICLE: Supreme Court Review of State Court "Federal" Decisions: A Study in Interactive Federalism, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 861 (1985)
996. ARTICLE: Exploring the Interface Between Rule 23 Class Actions and the Anti-Injunction Act, 18 Ga. L.
Rev. 259 (1984)
997. ARTICLE: TWENTY QUESTIONS (OR THE HARDEST COURSE IN LAW SCHOOL), 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 497 (2001)
18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 497 p.497
998. THE CITY COURT OF ATLANTA AND THE 1983 GEORGIA CONSTITUTION: IS THE JUDICIAL ENGINE SOUPED UP OR BLOWN UP?, 15 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 941 (1999)
999. ARTICLE: The Truth Be Damned: The First Amendment, Attorney Speech, and Judicial Reputation, 97 Geo.
L.J. 1567 (2009)97 Geo. L.J. 1567 p.1567
Page 123
1000. SYMPOSIUM: CONGRESS AND THE COURTS: JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES: Introduction: Congressional Control of Jurisdiction and the Future of the Federal Courts -- Opposition, Agreement, and Hierarchy, 86 Geo. L.J. 2445 (1998)
86 Geo. L.J. 2445 p.2445
1001. NOTE: Staying Death Penalty Executions: An Empirical Analysis of Changing Judicial Attitudes, 84 Geo. L.J. 2543 (1996)
1002. SYMPOSIUM: "Economic Rights," Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983., 77 Geo.
L.J. 1493 (1989)77 Geo. L.J. 1493 p.1540
1003. NOTE: Section 1983 and the Independent Contractor., 74 Geo. L.J. 457 (1985) 1004. BOOK REVIEW: The World According to Judge Posner. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND
REFORM by Richard A. Posner, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985. Pp. xvii, 365. $ 25.00., 73 Geo. L.J. 1507 (1985)
1005. 65 Geo. L.J. 1483
65 Geo. L.J. 1483 p.1484
1006. ARTICLE: The Intended Relationship Between Administrative Regulations and Section 1983's"Laws", 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 51 (1998)
1007. NOTE: Malicious Prosecution Claims Under Section 1983: Do Citizens Have Federal Recourse?, 64 Geo.
Wash. L. Rev. 776 (1996) 1008. ARTICLE: When Federalism and Separation of Powers Collide -- Rethinking Younger Abstention., 59 Geo.
Wash. L. Rev. 114 (1990) 1009. ESSAY: Moral Ambition, Formalism, and the "Free World" of DeShaney., 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1513
(1989) 1010. NOTE: THE MILITIA CLAUSES, THE NATIONAL GUARD, AND FEDERALISM: A CONSTITUTIONAL
TUG OF WAR. *, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 328 (1988) 1011. ARTICLE: CLEANING UP ONE MESS TO CREATE ANOTHER: DUPLICATIVE CLASS ACTIONS,
FEDERAL COURTS' INJUNCTIVE POWER, AND THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005, 29 Hamline L. Rev. 218 (2006)
1012. ARTICLE: The Constitutional Tort Action as Individual Remedy, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393 (2003)
1013. ARTICLE: ALDEN TRILOGY: PRAISE AND PROTEST, 23 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 323 (2000)
1014. LEADING CASE: F. Tax Injunction Act, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 486 (2004)
118 Harv. L. Rev. 486 p.486
1015. BOOK REVIEW: MINING IN HARD GROUND THE MINER'S CANARY. By Lani Guinier & Gerald Torres., 116 Harv. L. Rev. 2487 (2003)
Page 124
116 Harv. L. Rev. 2487 p.2487
1016. NOTE: FEDERAL COURT INVOLVEMENT IN REDISTRICTING LITIGATION, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 878 (2001)
114 Harv. L. Rev. 878 p.878
1017. LEADING CASES: I. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Continued, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 296 (1999)113 Harv. L. Rev. 296 p.296
1018. RECENT CASES: Federal Civil Procedure - Sixth Circuit Holds That Federal Court Should Abstain From Deciding a Nonparty's First Amendment Challenge to a State Court Injunction. - Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, Inc., 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998)., 112 Harv. L. Rev. 976 (1999)
112 Harv. L. Rev. 976 p.976
1019. ARTICLE: DECONSTITUTIONALIZING JUSTICIABILITY: THE EXAMPLE OF MOOTNESS., 105 Harv. L. Rev. 605 (1992)
1020. 105 Harv. L. Rev. 603, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 603
105 Harv. L. Rev. 603 p.621
1021. Leading Cases, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 (1991)105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 p.177
1022. THE SUPREME COURT, 1990 TERM: LEADING CASES., 105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 (1991) 1023. THE SUPREME COURT, 1989 TERM: LEADING CASES: III. FEDERAL STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS; B. Civil Rights Law., 104 Harv. L. Rev. 339 (1990)104 Harv. L. Rev. 339 p.339
1024. NOTE: CLARIFYING COMITY: STATE COURT JURISDICTION AND SECTION 1983 STATE TAX CHALLENGES, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1888 (1990)
103 Harv. L. Rev. 1888 p.1888
1025. NOTE: FORUM SHOPPING RECONSIDERED., 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1677 (1990)103 Harv. L. Rev. 1677 p.1677
1026. ARTICLE: HOW TO BUILD A SEPARATE SPHERE: FEDERAL COURTS AND STATE POWER., 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1485 (1987)
100 Harv. L. Rev. 1485 p.1487
1027. BOOK REVIEW: TAKING BUREAUCRACY SERIOUSLY. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. By Richard A. Posner. n1, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 344 (1985)
99 Harv. L. Rev. 344 p.344
Page 125
1028. BOOK REVIEW: AN ACTIVISM OF AMBIVALENCE THE BURGER COURT: THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION THAT WASN'T. Edited by Vincent Blasi. n1, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 (1984)
98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 p.315
1029. THE SUPREME COURT, 1981 TERM: II. FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 196 (1982)
96 Harv. L. Rev. 196 p.196
1030. 93 Harv. L. Rev. 46593 Harv. L. Rev. 465 p.501
1031. 91 Harv. L. Rev. 137391 Harv. L. Rev. 1373 p.1391
1032. 90 Harv. L. Rev. 29390 Harv. L. Rev. 293 p.316
1033. DEDICATION TO PROFESSOR RAY FORRESTER: ARTICLE: Privileges or Immunities: The Missing Link in Establishing Congressional Power to Abrogate State Eleventh Amendment Immunity, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 235 (2001)
1034. ARTICLE: The Missing Pieces of the Debate Over Federal Property Rights Legislation, 27 Hastings Const.
L.Q. 1 (1999) 1035. ARTICLE: Reconsidering the Artful Pleading Doctrine., 44 Hastings L.J. 273 (1993)
1036. NOTE: A Reexamination of the Non-Dischargeability of Criminal Restitutive Obligations in Chapter 13
Bankruptcies., 43 Hastings L.J. 1517 (1992) 1037. ARTICLE: Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction., 35
Hastings L.J. 571 (1984) 1038. ARTICLE: DISADVANTAGED BY DESIGN: HOW THE LAW INHIBITS AGRICULTURAL GUEST
WORKERS FROM ENFORCING THEIR RIGHTS, 18 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 575 (2001) 1039. NOTE: CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS: HARMLESS ERROR APPLIED TO REMOVAL JURISDICTION *,
35 Hous. L. Rev. 601 (1998) 1040. COMMENT: STUDENTS HURTING STUDENTS: WHO WILL PAY? *, 34 Hous. L. Rev. 579 (1997)
1041. COMMENT: JUDICIAL GAP-FILLING IN WARN CLAIMS: THE UNCERTAINTY CONTINUES, 32 Hous.
L. Rev. 1125 (1995) 1042. Second Annual Vinson & Elkins LLP/Howard Law Journal Symposium: Article: Pleading Civil Rights
Claims in the Post-Conley Era, 52 How. L.J. 99 (2008)52 How. L.J. 99 p.99
1043. COMMENT: Stretching the Civil Rights Statutes Too Far: Telecommunications Service Providers Should Not Receive Compensation Under Civil Rights Statute 1983 for Violations of the Telecommunications Act of
Page 126
1996, 46 How. L.J. 581 (2003)46 How. L.J. 581 p.581
1044. COMMENT: Federal Court Remedies: The Creative Use Of Potential Remedies Can Produce Institutional Change., 27 How. L.J. 879 (1984)
27 How. L.J. 879 p.879
1045. ARTICLE: Reevaluating Substantive Due Process as a Source of Protection for Psychiatric Patients to Refuse Drugs, 31 Ind. L. Rev. 937 (1998)
31 Ind. L. Rev. 937 p.937
1046. Bringing in the State: Toward a Constitutional Duty to Protect from Mob Violence+, 79 Ind. L.J. 177 (2004)
79 Ind. L.J. 177 p.177
1047. ARTICLE: A Limitation Period with Real Limitations, 69 Ind. L.J. 477 (1994) 1048. ARTICLE: Symmetries of Access in Civil Rights Litigation: Politics, Pragmatism and Will, 66 Ind. L.J. 1
(1990) 1049. ARTICLE: In Lieu of Preclusion: Reconciling Administrative Decisionmaking and Federal Civil Rights
Claims +, 65 Ind. L.J. 367 (1990) 1050. ARTICLE: Letting Go of the Eleventh Amendment, 64 Ind. L.J. 601 (1989)
1051. SYMPOSIUM: Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation, 62 Ind. L.J. 507 (1987)
62 Ind. L.J. 507 p.507
1052. ARTICLE: State Antitrust in the Federal Scheme +, 58 Ind. L.J. 375 (1983) 1053. ARTICLE: State Court Judgments in Federal Litigation: Mapping the Contours of Full Faith and Credit, 58
Ind. L.J. 59 (1982) 1054. COMMENT: Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.: The Continuing Saga of the Younger Doctrine, 82
Iowa L. Rev. 275 (1996)82 Iowa L. Rev. 275 p.275
1055. COMMENT: Doctrinal Foundations of Section 1983 and the Resurgent Dormant Commerce Clause, 77 Iowa L. Rev. 1249 (1992)
77 Iowa L. Rev. 1249 p.1249
1056. ARTICLE: Monell, Parratt, Daniels, and Davidson: Distinguishing a Custom or Policy from a Random, Unauthorized Act, 72 Iowa L. Rev. 101 (1986)
1057. COMMENT: Municipal Liability Under Section 1983: Rethinking the "Policy or Custom" Standard After
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 (1986)71 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 p.1209
Page 127
1058. ARTICLE: Exhaustion of Grievance Procedures for State Prisoners Under Section 1997e of the Civil Rights Act, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 935 (1986)
1059. ARTICLE: The Unhappy History of Federal Question Removal, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 717 (1986)
1060. COMMENT: Claim Preclusion and Section 1983 Civil Rights Actions: Migra v. Warren City School District
Board of Education, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 287 (1984)70 Iowa L. Rev. 287 p.287
1061. ARTICLE: PERIMETER RULES, PROPRIETARY POWERS, AND THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT: A TALE OF TWO CITIES ... AND TWO AIRPORTS, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 223 (2000)
1062. COMMENT: Criminal Law: Racially-Motivated Violence and Intimidation: Inadequate State Enforcement
and Federal Civil Rights Remedies, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 103 (1984) 1063. NOTE AND COMMENT: A Fresh Look at a Stale Doctrine: How Public Policy and the Tenets of Piercing
the Corporate Veil Dictate the Inapplicability of the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine to the Civil Rights Arena, 3 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 131 (2008)
1064. ARTICLE: FEDERALISM: THE IMPRECISE CALCULUS OF DUAL SOVEREIGNTY, 35 J. Marshall L.
Rev. 1 (2001)35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 p.1
1065. ARTICLE: Civil Rights are Civil Rights are Civil Rights: The Inapplicability of Preclusion to Unreviewed State Administrative Decisions, 20 J. NAALJ 199 (2000)
1066. ARTICLE: Fair Play: The Tension Between an Athletic Association's Regulatory Power and Free Speech
Rights of Member Schools - The Practical Implications of Tennessee v. Brentwood, 28 J. Nat'l Ass'n L. Jud. 237 (2008)
1067. ESSAY: Justice Charles M. Leibson and the Revival of State Constitutional Law: A Microcosm of a
Movement, 86 Ky. L.J. 1009 (1998)86 Ky. L.J. 1009 p.1009
1068. 63 La. L. Rev. 785, 63 La. L. Rev. 78563 La. L. Rev. 785 p.785
1069. 62 La. L. Rev. 275, 62 La. L. Rev. 27562 La. L. Rev. 275 p.275
1070. 44 La. L. Rev. 967, 44 La. L. Rev. 96744 La. L. Rev. 967 p.967
1071. 56 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 10556 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 105 p.108
1072. 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 1 201
Page 128
55 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 1 201 p.208
1073. 43 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 3943 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 39 p.44
1074. 43 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 743 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 7 p.20
1075. SYMPOSIUM: Brown II: Ordinary Remedies for Extraordinary Wrongs, 24 Law & Ineq. J. 47 (2006) 1076. REVIEW ESSAYS: Reconsidering the Frankfurterian Paradigm: Reflections on Histories of Lower Federal
Courts, 24 Law & Soc. Inquiry 679 (1999) 1077. COMMENT: A CONVICTION CORRECTION PROCEDURE: FINALITY, FEDERALISM, AND POST-
CONVICTION ACCESS TO DNA EVIDENCE THROUGH, 54 Loy. L. Rev. 674 (2008)54 Loy. L. Rev. 674 p.674
1078. FIFTH CIRCUIT SYMPOSIUM: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, 46 Loy. L. Rev. 1029 (2000)
46 Loy. L. Rev. 1029 p.1029
1079. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION*: THE ANTI-INJUNCTION AND ALL WRITS ACT IN COMPLEX LITIGATION, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 (2004)
37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 p.1603
1080. SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: IN THE MEANTIME: STATE PROTECTION OF DISABILITY CIVIL RIGHTS, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1065 (2004)
37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1065 p.1065
1081. COMMENT: EMPLOYING THE SECTION 5 ENFORCEMENT POWER TO GUARANTEE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE STATE COURTS, 85 Marq. L. Rev. 1025 (2002)
85 Marq. L. Rev. 1025 p.1025
1082. ESSAY: Proposals to Amend the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., 29 McGeorge L. Rev. 825 (1998) 1083. THE MARYLAND SURVEY: 1994-1995: Recent Decision: The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit: Civil Rights, 55 Md. L. Rev. 921 (1996) 1084. ARTICLE: WANTED: A FEDERAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING THE ADEQUATE STATE FORUM,
50 Md. L. Rev. 131 (1991) 1085. ARTICLE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS, 45 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1986)
1086. ARTICLE: Mt. Healthy and Causation-in-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't Get It!, 51 Mercer L. Rev. 603
(2000) 1087. NOTE: Proximate Cause in Constitutional Torts: Holding Interrogators Liable for Fifth Amendment
Page 129
Violations at Trial, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1551 (2007)105 Mich. L. Rev. 1551 p.1551
1088. NOTES: Removal and the Eleventh Amendment: The Case for District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid a Bifurcated Suit, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (1993)
92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 p.683
1089. ARTICLE: A REVISIONIST THEORY OF ABSTENTION. $(+$), 88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 (1989)88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 p.538
1090. 1989 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW; VI. CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS: A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERAL LAW AND SOUTHERN ORDER: RACIAL VIOLENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IN THE POST-BROWN SOUTH. By Michal Belknap., 87 Mich. L. Rev. 1599 (1989)
87 Mich. L. Rev. 1599 p.1599
1091. NOTE: Dormant Commerce Clause Claims Under Protecting the Right To Be Free of Protectionist State Action, 86 Mich. L. Rev. 157 (1987)
86 Mich. L. Rev. 157 p.157
1092. NOTE: Class Actions for Punitive Damages., 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 (1983)81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 p.1787
1093. 79 Mich. L. Rev. 148579 Mich. L. Rev. 1485 p.1491
1094. 79 Mich. L. Rev. 579 Mich. L. Rev. 5 p.24
1095. ARTICLE: Shedding New Light on an Old Debate: A Federal Indian Law Perspective on Congressional Authority to Limit Federal Question Jurisdiction., 75 Minn. L. Rev. 65 (1990)
75 Minn. L. Rev. 65 p.104
1096. COMMENT: San Bernardino Physicians' Services Medical Group, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino: Constitutionally Protected Public Contract Property Interests Under, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 879 (1990)
74 Minn. L. Rev. 879 p.879
1097. ARTICLE: Speedy Criminal Appeal: A Right Without A Remedy., 74 Minn. L. Rev. 437 (1990)74 Minn. L. Rev. 437 p.493
1098. NOTE: Amending a Statute of Limitations for More Than "A Half Measure of Uniformity"., 73 Minn. L. Rev. 85 (1988)
73 Minn. L. Rev. 85 p.85
Page 130
1099. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND CIVIL RIGHTS SYMPOSIUM, PART II: ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IN US AND IN OUR POSTERITY, 68 Miss. L.J. 565 (1998)
1100. ARTICLE: Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity, 64 Mo. L. Rev. 123 (1999)
64 Mo. L. Rev. 123 p.123
1101. SYMPOSIUM: LOCATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CENTER CENTRIST JUDGES AND MAINSTREAM VALUES: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY EXPLORATION: "Meet the New Boss": The New Judicial Center, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 1205 (2005)
83 N.C. L. Rev. 1205 p.1205
1102. NOTE: O'Sullivan v. Boerckel and the Default of State Prisoners' Federal Claims: Comity or Tragedy?, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1604 (2000)
1103. Civil Rights Plaintiffs, Clogged Courts, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court
Takes a Look at Heightened Pleading Standards in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 72 N.C. L. Rev. 1085 (1994)
1104. ARTICLE: THE RIGHT TO AVOID TRIAL: JUSTIFYING FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION INTO
ONGOING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 66 N.C. L. Rev. 49 (1987) 1105. ARTICLE: FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND SECTION 1983: A REAPPRAISAL., 63 N.C. L. Rev. 59
(1984) 1106. COMMENT: Heck v. Humphrey: What Should State Prisoners Use When Seeking Damages from State
Officials . . . Section 1983 or Federal Habeas Corpus?, 22 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 109 (1996) 1107. ARTICLE: OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE OLD: RECONSIDERING THE ANALYTICAL
FRAMEWORK FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS CREATED IN CORTEZ V. MCCAULEY, 38 N.M. L. Rev. 587 (2008)
38 N.M. L. Rev. 587 p.587
1108. ARTICLE: FEDERAL COURTS, STATE POWER, AND INDIAN TRIBES: CONFRONTING THE WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2005)
35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1109. IV. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT: RACE AND THE CONSTITUTION, 45 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 101 (2001)
45 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 101 p.101
1110. NOTE: FEDERAL COURT ABSTENTION AND THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 421 (2004)
79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 421 p.421
1111. NOTE: AVOIDING THE RACE TO RES JUDICATA: FEDERAL ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS OF COMPETING STATE CLASS ACTIONS, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1085 (2000)
Page 131
1112. SYMPOSIUM: THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON
CLASS ACTIONS: CLASS ACTIONS AND JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTIONS, 71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 (1996)
71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 p.532
1113. NOTE: NEW YORK CORRECTION LAWSECTION 24: NO BARTO PRISONERS' RIGHTS, 70 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 326 (1995)
1114. NOTES JANUS WAS NOT A GOD OF JUSTICE: REALIGNMENT OF PARTIES IN DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1072 (1993) 1115. ARTICLE: THE MISGUIDED SEARCH FOR STATE INTEREST IN ABSTENTION CASES:
OBSERVATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF PENNZOIL V. TEXACO., 63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1051 (1988)63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1051 p.1056
1116. ARTICLE: EXPLAINING HABEAS CORPUS., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 (1985)60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 p.1027
1117. ARTICLE: JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 (1985)60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 p.576
1118. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983 AND FEDERAL PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS -- WILL THE STATUTE REMAIN ALIVE OF FADE AWAY?, 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1985)
60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.6
1119. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: APPENDIX: CIVIL PROCEDURE APPENDIX., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1483 (1984)
1120. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: NOTE: IDENTIFICATION, TOLERABILITY,
AND RESOLUTION OF INTERCIRCUIT CONFLICTS: REEXAMINING PROFESSOR FEENEY'S STUDY OF CONFLICTS IN FEDERAL LAW., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1007 (1984)
1121. ARTICLE: OF JUSTICIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND PUBLIC LAW LITIGATION: NOTES ON THE
JURISPRUDENCE OF LYONS., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1984)59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.5
1122. 49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 109249 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1092 p.1109
1123. 49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 74049 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 740 p.845
1124. Article: Fee Shifting and Sovereign Immunity After Seminole Tribe n1, 88 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (2009)88 Neb. L. Rev. 1 p.1
Page 132
1125. The Anti-Injunction Act: Fending Off the New Attack on the Relitigation Exception, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 643 (1993)
1126. The 1990 Federal "Fallback" Statute of Limitations: Limitations by Default *, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 454 (1993)
1127. NOTE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 1983: THE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING IMPROPER
MOTIVES OF A MULTI-MEMBER MUNICIPAL BOARD, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 865 (2008) 1128. FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: LOGIC WITHOUT EXPERIENCE: THE PROBLEM
OF FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 97 (2006)82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 97 p.97
1129. ARTICLE: REFORMING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871: THE PROBLEM OF POLICE PERJURY, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1259 (2005)
80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1259 p.1259
1130. ARTICLE: OF SOVEREIGNTY AND UNION: THE LEGENDS OF ALDEN, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1113 (2001)
76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1113 p.1113
1131. ARTICLE: INTERSYSTEMIC REDUNDANCY AND FEDERAL COURT POWER: PROPOSING A ZERO TOLERANCE SOLUTION TO THE DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION PROBLEM, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347 (2000)
1132. ARTICLE: INTERSYSTEMIC REDUNDANCY AND FEDERAL COURT POWER: PROPOSING A ZERO
TOLERANCE SOLUTION TO THE DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION PROBLEM, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347 (2000)
1133. 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347
75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347 p.1347
1134. COMMENT: COMMENTS ON ROOKER-FELDMAN OR LET STATE LAW BE OUR GUIDE, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1209 (1999)
74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1209 p.1209
1135. ARTICLE: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE: EVALUATING ITS JURISDICTIONAL STATUS, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1175 (1999)
74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1175 p.1175
1136. ARTICLE: JUDICIAL FEDERALISM IN THE TRENCHES: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE INACTION, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1085 (1999)
74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1085 p.1085
1137. ARTICLES: When the Environment is Other People: An Essay on Science, Culture, and the Authoritative Allocation of Values, 69 Notre Dame L. Rev. 597 (1994)
1138. ARTICLE: THE CASELOAD CONUNDRUM, CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT AND THE
MANIPULATION OF JURISDICTION, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 321 (1989)
Page 133
1139. CASE COMMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - JETT V. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT:
THE APPLICABILITY OF MUNICIPAL VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER, 63 Notre Dame L. Rev. 233 (1988)
63 Notre Dame L. Rev. 233 p.233
1140. SYMPOSIUM THE BURGER COURT AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: ARTICLE: STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TWO FACES OF FEDERALISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 833 (1985)
1141. Comment: FREE SPEECH AND DUE PROCESS PROBLEMS IN THE REGULATION AND FINANCING
OF JUDICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, 101 Nw. U.L. Rev. 331 (2007)101 Nw. U.L. Rev. 331 p.331
1142. Comment: ABSTENTION PREEMPTION: HOW THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE OPENED THE DOOR TO THE ERADICATION OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1355 (2005)
99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1355 p.1355
1143. Comment: STANDING IN GOOD STEAD: STATE COURTS, FEDERAL STANDING DOCTRINE, AND REVERSE-ERIE ANALYSIS, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1315 (2005)
99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1315 p.1315
1144. NOTE & COMMENT: UNEXAMINED PREMISES: TOWARD DOCTRINAL PURITY IN 1983 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION DOCTRINE, 97 Nw. U.L. Rev. 439 (2002)
97 Nw. U.L. Rev. 439 p.439
1145. LEGAL THEORY: IMMUNITY UNDER INTERPRETIVE APPROACH AND THE SEARCH FOR THE LEGISLATIVE WILL., 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 497 (1992)
86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 497 p.533
1146. BOOK REVIEW: THE SEDUCTION OF DEDUCTION: THE ALLURE OF AND PROBLEMS WITH A DEDUCTIVE APPROACH TO FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION A REVIEW OF MARTIN H. REDISH, THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE POLITICAL ORDER: JUDICIAL JURISDICTION AND AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORY, 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 96 (1991)
1147. LEGAL THEORY: A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE: THE SUPREME COURT, CONGRESS AND FEDERAL
JURISDICTION., 85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 (1990)85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 p.18
1148. BOOK REVIEW: CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS? A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. By Richard A. Posner. *, 80 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1383 (1986)
1149. 75 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1112
75 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1112 p.1125
1150. 74 Nw. U.L. Rev. 89474 Nw. U.L. Rev. 894 p.922
Page 134
1151. 72 Nw. U.L. Rev. 65672 Nw. U.L. Rev. 656 p.684
1152. 70 Nw. U.L. Rev. 85970 Nw. U.L. Rev. 859 p.863
1153. 69 Nw. U.L. Rev. 48969 Nw. U.L. Rev. 489 p.534
1154. THE TWENTIETH ANNUAL LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM: FEAR AND FEDERALISM: ARTICLE: The New And Unfortunate Face of Judicial Federalism, 23 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 1197 (1997)
23 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 1197 p.1197
1155. Note & Comment: Procedural Impediments to the Resolution of Mass Tort Cases: The Anti-Injunction Act and the Due Process Clause, 12 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 485 (1997)
1156. SYMPOSIUM: THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE CURRENT CYCLE OF FAMILY LAW
REFORM: State Intervention in the Family: Making a Federal Case Out of It., 45 Ohio St. L.J. 399 (1984) 1157. SYMPOSIUM: STATE PRISONER USE OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES: The
Exhaustion Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus: An Argument for a Return to First Principles., 44 Ohio St. L.J. 393 (1983)
1158. SYMPOSIUM: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT: THE 1999 TERM: What Is the Supreme
Court's New Federalism?, 25 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 927 (2000) 1159. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983: AGENT OF PEACE OR VEHICLE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN?, 54
Okla. L. Rev. 333 (2001)54 Okla. L. Rev. 333 p.333
1160. Article: Reservations About Extending Bivens to Reservations: Seeking Monetary Relief Against Tribal Law Enforcement Officers for Constitutional Violations, 29 Pace L. Rev. 585 (2009)
1161. COMMENTS AND NOTES: Who Wants Nominal Damages Anyway? The Impact of an Automatic
Entitlement to Nominal Damages under 1983, 13 Regent U.L. Rev. 225 (2000) 1162. ARTICLE: CASO SOBRE EL VOTO DE LOS PUERTORRIQUE OS EN LAS ELECCIONES
PRESIDENCIALES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS: EL CASO DE LAS ELECCIONES PRESIDENCIALES EN PUERTO RICO: UN RELATO PERSONAL, 37 Rev. Jur. U.I.P.R. 573 (2003)
37 Rev. Jur. U.I.P.R. 573 p.573
1163. ARTICLE: Jurisdictional Implications in the Reduced Funding of Lower Federal Courts, 25 Rev. Litig. 1 (2006)
1164. NOTE AND COMMENT: Mainstream Loudoun and the Future of Internet Filtering for America's Public
Libraries, 26 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 357 (2000)
Page 135
1165. ARTICLE: U.S. Torture as a Tort, 37 Rutgers L.J. 715 (2006)37 Rutgers L.J. 715 p.715
1166. ARTICLE: THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HABEAS, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125 (2005)
78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125 p.1125
1167. ARTICLE: DISPOSING OF THE RED HERRINGS: A DEFENSE OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 589 (1996)
1168. ARTICLE: CONTRACT THEORY AND THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS: AN APPROACH TO THE
ARBITRABILITY QUESTION., 60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1059 (1987) 1169. ARTICLE: JUDICIALLY ORDERED SOCIAL REFORM: NEOFEDERALISM AND NEONATIONALISM
AND THE DEBATE OVER POLITICAL STRUCTURE., 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 449 (1986) 1170. ARTICLE: Rejecting the Touchstone: Complete Preemption and Congressional Intent After Beneficial
National Bank v. Anderson, 59 S.C. L. Rev. 225 (2008)59 S.C. L. Rev. 225 p.225
1171. ARTICLE: A Catalogue of Judicial Federalism in the United States, 46 S.C. L. Rev. 835 (1995) 1172. ARTICLE: THE "NEW" FEDERAL HABEAS: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, 40
S.D. L. Rev. 442 (1995) 1173. COMMENT: CAN CONGRESS REQUIRE THAT STATES WAIVE THEIR IMMUNITY TO PRIVATE
LAWSUITS IN EXCHANGE FOR RECEIVING FEDERAL PATENT RIGHTS?, 42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 607 (2002)
42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 607 p.607
1174. ARTICLE: THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS REVOLUTION: HOW CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION CAME TO REGULATE POLICE AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MISCONDUCT, 7 SCHOLAR 151 (2005)
1175. ARTICLE: United Artists: Reviewing the Conscience Shocking Test Under Section 1983, 1 Seton Hall Cir.
Rev. 101 (2005) 1176. SURVEY: CRIMINAL LAW - Malicious Prosecution - An Overturned Municipal Court Conviction Does not
Prevent a Plaintiff from Suing a Police Officer in a Malicious Prosecution Action - Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998)., 29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1178 (1999)
29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1178 p.1178
1177. ARTICLE: The Abstention Doctrines: Balancing Comity with Federal Court Intervention, 28 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1102 (1998)
1178. COMMENT: WILSON v. SPAIN: WILL PRETRIAL DETAINEES ESCAPE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
"TWILIGHT ZONE"?, 75 St. John's L. Rev. 449 (2001)75 St. John's L. Rev. 449 p.449
Page 136
1179. TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS: ARTICLE: A LITIGATION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. 857 (2009)
53 St. Louis U. L.J. 857 p.857
1180. COMMENT: RECONCILING ALEXANDER AND GILMER: EXPLAINING THE CONTINUED VALIDITY OF ALEXANDER V. GARDNER-DENVER CO. IN THE CONTEXT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, 43 St. Louis U. L.J. 219 (1999)
43 St. Louis U. L.J. 219 p.219
1181. SYMPOSIUM: SHIFTING THE BALANCE OF POWER? THE SUPREME COURT, FEDERALISM, AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: "Appropriate" Means-Ends Constraints on Section 5 Powers, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127 (2001)
53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127 p.1127
1182. SYMPOSIUM ON CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM: Congress and the Courts:Our Mutual Obligation, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1285 (1994)
1183. ARTICLE: Taking Comity Seriously: How to Neutralize the Abstention Doctrine, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049
(1994)46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049 p.1058
1184. ARTICLE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS PRACTICAL REASONING., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 (1990)42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 p.354
1185. ARTICLE: The Idea of a Case., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 227 (1990)42 Stan. L. Rev. 227 p.282
1186. ARTICLE: A Critical Approach to Section 1983 with Special Attention to Sources of Law., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1989)
42 Stan. L. Rev. 51 p.73
1187. NOTE: The Misapplication of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine in Non-Antitrust Right to Petition Cases., 36 Stan. L. Rev. 1243 (1984)
1188. 29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191
29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191 p.1195
1189. 29 Stan. L. Rev. 89329 Stan. L. Rev. 893 p.921
1190. 29 Stan. L. Rev. 2729 Stan. L. Rev. 27 p.30
1191. 27 Stan. L. Rev. 52527 Stan. L. Rev. 525 p.542
Page 137
1192. ARTICLE: THE NEW ETIQUETTE OF FEDERALISM: NEW YORK, PRINTZ, AND YESKEY, 1998 Sup. Ct. Rev. 71 (1998)
1193. COMMENT: THE FIGHT FOR CREAMY PEANUT BUTTER: WHY EXAMINING CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT MAY RECTIFY THE PROBLEMS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 145 (2007)
36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 145 p.145
1194. COMMENT: TRANSFER OF VENUE UNDER (a): ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, OR, CRACKING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, 75 Temp. L. Rev. 925 (2002)
75 Temp. L. Rev. 925 p.925
1195. ARTICLE: THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT: THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT OF COURT - IT MAY BE EFFECTIVE, BUT IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471 (1997)
1196. Constitutional Torts and the Due Process Clause, 4 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 317 (1995)
1197. ARTICLE: THE JURISDICTIONAL LEGACY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 869
(1994) 1198. ARTICLE: HOW MANY BITES ARE ENOUGH? THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN UNIVERSITY
OF TENNESSEE V. ELLIOTT, 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 205 (1988) 1199. ARTICLE: MR. JUSTICE POTTER STEWART: THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF JUSTICE
POTTER STEWART: REFLECTIONS ON A LIFE OF PUBLIC SERVICE, 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1987) 1200. ARTICLE: THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 52
Tenn. L. Rev. 605 (1985) 1201. ARTICLE: Protecting a Federal Court Judgment, 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 635 (1975)
1202. NOTE: Judicial Misuse of History and 1983: Toward a Purpose-Based Approach *, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 999
(2007)85 Tex. L. Rev. 999 p.999
1203. ARTICLE: Drawing Lines Between Chevron and Pennhurst: A Functional Analysis of the Spending Power, Federalism, and the Administrative State, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1197 (2004)
82 Tex. L. Rev. 1197 p.1197
1204. Book Review: The Politics of Constitutional Law, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 (2000)79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 p.163
1205. NOTE: Equitable Subordination and Analogous Theories of Lender Liability: Toward a New Model of "Control". *, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 801 (1987)
1206. ARTICLE: Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act., 64 Tex. L. Rev.
1039 (1986)64 Tex. L. Rev. 1039 p.1082
Page 138
1207. 55 Tex. L. Rev. 114155 Tex. L. Rev. 1141 p.1143
1208. NOTE AND COMMENT: ESCAPE DENIED: THE GRETNA BRIDGE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ARMED BLOCKADE IN THE WAKE OF KATRINA +, 13 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 127 (2006)
1209. DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: MOURNING THE DEATH OF
ORIGINALISM IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 68 Tul. L. Rev. 803 (1994) 1210. ESSAY: ADMINISTRATIVE PROSECUTORIAL INDISCRETION., 63 Tul. L. Rev. 877 (1989)
1211. ARTICLE: THE POWER OF STATE LEGISLATURES TO SUBPOENA FEDERAL OFFICIALS., 58 Tul. L.
Rev. 548 (1983) 1212. NOTE: Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure--Younger Abstention Doctrine Extended to State Attachment
Proceeding, 52 Tul. L. Rev. 194 (1977)52 Tul. L. Rev. 194 p.194
1213. ARTICLE: Limitation of Liability in Oil Pollution Cases: In Search of Concursus or Procedural Alternatives to Concursus *, 22 Tul. Mar. L. J. 331 (1998)
1214. Comment: Preserving Procedure: Requiring the Government to Disprove Causation in Procedural Due
Process Claims, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 441 (2009)76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 441 p.441
1215. COMMENT: Why Title IX Does Not Preclude Section 1983 Claims, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1465 (1998) 1216. COMMENT: Federal Habeas Corpus and State Procedural Default: An Abstention-Based Interest
Analysis., 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263 (1989) 1217. ARTICLE: State Sovereignty and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments., 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 61 (1989)
56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 61 p.83
1218. COMMENT: Excessive Force Claims: Removing the Double Standard., 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1369 (1986) 1219. ARTICLE: Section 1983 and the Private Enforcement of Federal Law, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 394 (1982)
49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 394 p.409
1220. 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 63646 U. Chi. L. Rev. 636 p.662
1221. 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 31745 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317 p.321
1222. 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 71744 U. Chi. L. Rev. 717 p.729
Page 139
1223. 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 50944 U. Chi. L. Rev. 509 p.521
1224. COMMENT: SECTION 1983 AND TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT: IN PURSUIT OF IMPROVED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, 60 U. Cin. L. Rev. 221 (1991)
1225. CASENOTE: MINORITY BUSINESS SET-ASIDES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF
PRIOR DISCRIMINATION: City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989), 58 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1097 (1990)
1226. CASE NOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- CIVIL RIGHTS -- STATES -- THE WISCONSIN STATUTORY
RECOVERY CEILING ON DAMAGE AWARDS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL BODIES IS INAPPLICABLE TO A DAMAGE AWARD UNDER -- Thompson v. Village of Hales Corners, 340 N.W.2d 704 (Wis. 1983), 53 U. Cin. L. Rev. 667 (1984)
1227. RECENT CASE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- SEARCH AND SEIZURE -- POLICE -- ARREST --
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY POLICE OFFICERS AGAINST AN UNARMED SUSPECT OF A NONVIOLENT FELONY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS -- Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983), 52 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1155 (1983)
1228. RECENT CASE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- FEDERALISM -- FEDERAL COURTS -- FEDERAL
JURISDICTION -- EQUITY -- REMEDIES -- INJUNCTIONS -- DECLARATORY RELIEF -- DAMAGES -- THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, BUT FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RETAINED WHEN THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF THAT CANNOT BE GRANTED BY THE STATE FORUM. -- Williams v. Red Bank, 51 U. Cin. L. Rev. 427 (1982)
1229. ARTICLE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: RULE INTERPLEADER, THE ANTI-INJUNCTION
ACT, IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION, AND M.C. ESCHER, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 (1996) 1230. Comment: From Anti-Injunction to Radical Reform: Proposing a Unifying Approach to Class-Action
Adjudication, 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 (2008)31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 p.155
1231. ARTICLE: Courts and the Cultural Performance: Native Hawaiians' Uncertain Federal and State Law Rights to Sue, 16 U. Haw. L. Rev. 1 (1994)
1232. 1976 U. Ill. L. Forum 1016
1976 U. Ill. L. Forum 1016 p.1051
1233. ARTICLE: THE BUCK DOES NOT STOP HERE: SUPERVISORY LIABILITY IN SECTION 1983 CASES, 1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 147 (1997)
1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 147 p.168
1234. NOTE: QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY OF STATE OFFICIALS: BUTZ V. ECONOMOU'S DISTORTED LEGACY, 1985 U. Ill. L. Rev. 401 (1985)
1235. TRANSITION: FETAL RIGHTS: DEFINING "PERSON" UNDER, 1983 U. Ill. L. Rev. 347 (1983)
Page 140
1236. COMMENT: Civil Rights--Allah v. Al-Hafeez: Section 1997e(e) of The Prison Litigation Reform Act: A
Recovery Limitation on Frivolous or Legitimate Claims?, 32 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1031 (2002) 1237. SYMPOSIUM: FISS'S WAY: THE SCHOLARSHIP OF OWEN FISS: IV. POLITICAL FREEDOM: Holistic
Interpretation, Comparative Constitutionalism, and Fiss-ian Freedoms, 58 U. Miami L. Rev. 265 (2003)58 U. Miami L. Rev. 265 p.265
1238. CASE COMMENT: Beyond a Black and White Reading of Sections 1981 and 1982: Shifting the Focus from Racial Status to Racist Acts, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 823 (1987)
1239. CASENOTE: Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.: Beyond a Crude Analysis of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine's
Preclusion of Federal Jurisdiction, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 627 (1987) 1240. ARTICLE: The Emerging State Court 1983 Action: A Procedural Review $(PART 1 OF 2$), 38 U. Miami
L. Rev. 381 (1984) 1241. ARTICLE: THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN VOTING RIGHTS LITIGATION, 30 U. Mich. J.L.
Reform 79 (1996) 1242. NOTE: TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION: A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PHYSICIAN AID-
IN-DYING, 27 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 521 (1994) 1243. THE THIRTY-SECOND THOMAS M. COOLEY LECTURES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS: PERSPECTIVES FROM ABROAD: NOTE: ABUSIVE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROPOSALS FOR JUDICIAL CONTROL, 18 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 93 (1984)
1244. NOTE: IS THE SECTION 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE OVERWORKED? EXPANDED USE OF
MAGISTRATES--AN ALTERNATIVE TO EXHAUSTION, 17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 361 (1984) 1245. ARTICLE: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND DUE PROCESS IN THE ERA OF THE NATIONWIDE CLASS
ACTION, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2035 (2008)156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2035 p.2035
1246. ARTICLE: THE PUZZLE OF COMPLETE PREEMPTION, 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 537 (2007)155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 537 p.537
1247. COMMENTS: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE: TOWARD A WORKABLE ROLE, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1555 (2001)
149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1555 p.1555
1248. COMMENT: COMITY BE DAMNED: THE USE OF ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE COURTS OF A FOREIGN NATION, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 409 (1998)
147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 409 p.409
1249. ARTICLE: FORUM SHOPPING FOR ARBITRATION DECISIONS: FEDERAL COURTS' USE OF ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST STATE COURTS, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 91 (1998)
147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 91 p.91
Page 141
1250. ARTICLE: RESHAPING SECTION 1983's ASYMMETRY., 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 (1992)140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 p.773
1251. ARTICLE: THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE IN THE SUPREME COURT: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE RESTRICTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS., 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 (1989)
138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 p.24
1252. ARTICLE: RELEASES, REDRESS, AND POLICE MISCONDUCT: REFLECTIONS ON AGREEMENTS TO WAIVE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGES., 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 851 (1988)
136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 851 p.918
1253. 126 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1203126 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1203 p.1277
1254. 125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 266125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 266 p.269
1255. 124 U. Pa. L. Rev. 45124 U. Pa. L. Rev. 45 p.70
1256. 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1071122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1071 p.1170
1257. ARTICLE: RETHINKING EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION *, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383 (1991) 1258. ARTICLE: IMMUNITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION: WHO SHOULD PAY?
**, 50 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 935 (1989) 1259. ARTICLE: AVOIDING DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION: RETHINKING PLAINTIFF AUTONOMY AND THE
COURT'S ROLE IN DEFINING THE LITIGATIVE UNIT., 50 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 809 (1989) 1260. ARTICLE: FAIR ASSESSMENT AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. +, 45 U. Pitt.
L. Rev. 351 (1984) 1261. EX PARTE YOUNG SYMPOSIUM: A CENTENNIAL RECOGNITION: ARTICLE: EX PARTE YOUNG:
SOVEREIGNTY, IMMUNITY, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM, 40 U. Tol. L. Rev. 843 (2009)
1262. PROSPECTUSES: Prospectus for the American Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project, 31
U.C. Davis L. Rev. 855 (1998) 1263. ARTICLE: LEGAL INDETERMINACY, JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN
LITIGATION EXPERIENCE: 1930-1980, 27 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 555 (1994) 1264. ARTICLE: Legal Indeterminacy, Judicial Discretion and the Mexican-American Litigation Experience:
1930-1980, 27 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 555 (1994)
Page 142
1265. SYMPOSIUM: Constitutional "Niches": The Role of Institutional Context in Constitutional Law: Revisiting Youngstown: Against the View That Jackson's Concurrence Resolves the Relation Between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1703 (2007)
54 UCLA L. Rev. 1703 p.1703
1266. ARTICLE: Judicial Parity, Litigant Choice, and Democratic Theory: A Comment on Federal Jurisdiction and Constitutional Rights, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 329 (1988)
36 UCLA L. Rev. 329 p.343
1267. ARTICLE: Parity Reconsidered: Defining a Role for the Federal Judiciary, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 (1988)36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 p.245
1268. 29 UCLA L. Rev. 129 UCLA L. Rev. 1 p.24
1269. 25 UCLA L. Rev. 130125 UCLA L. Rev. 1301 p.1304
1270. ARTICLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT v. THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE DILEMMA OF INHERENTLY COMPETING RIGHTS IN FREE SPEECH-BASED "CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS", 71 UMKC L. Rev. 27 (2002)
71 UMKC L. Rev. 27 p.27
1271. ARTICLE: A "Milder Measure of Villainy": The Unknown History of and the Meaning of "Under Color of" Law, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 1 (1999)
1272. REASSESSING THE ALLOCATION OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND "THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES". *, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 (1992)
78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 p.178578 Va. L. Rev. 1769 p.1830
1273. ARTICLE: THE IDEOLOGIES OF FEDERAL COURTS LAW., 74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988)74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 p.1144
1274. ARTICLE: FEDERALISM, STATE COURTS, AND SECTION 1983., 73 Va. L. Rev. 959 (1987)73 Va. L. Rev. 959 p.961
1275. ARTICLE: "UNDER COLOR OF" WHAT LAW: A RECONSTRUCTED MODEL OF SECTION 1983 LIABILITY., 71 Va. L. Rev. 499 (1985)
71 Va. L. Rev. 499 p.508
1276. 64 Va. L. Rev. 83364 Va. L. Rev. 833 p.833
Page 143
1277. 60 Va. L. Rev. 25060 Va. L. Rev. 250 p.284
1278. 60 Va. L. Rev. 160 Va. L. Rev. 1 p.59
1279. NOTE: A Standard for "Class of One" Claims Under the Equal Protection Clause of The Fourteenth Amendment: Protecting Victims of Non-Class Based Discrimination From Vindictive State Action, 35 Val. U.L. Rev. 197 (2000)
35 Val. U.L. Rev. 197 p.197
1280. NOTE: IN THE HEAT OF THE CHASE: DETERMINING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF POLICE PURSUITS WHEN AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER IS INJURED, 30 Val. U.L. Rev. 161 (1995)
30 Val. U.L. Rev. 161 p.161
1281. ARTICLE: Phantom Menace or New Hope: Member State Public Tort Liability After the Double-Bladed Light Saber Duel Between the European Court of Justice and the German Bundesgerichtshof in Brasserie du Pecheur, 33 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 311 (2000)
1282. ARTICLE: Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused, 51 Vand. L. Rev. 581 (1998)
51 Vand. L. Rev. 581 p.581
1283. ARTICLE: Regulatory Takings and Ripeness in the Federal Courts, 48 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (1995) 1284. ARTICLE: Late Night Confessions in the Hart and Wechsler Hotel., 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993 (1994)
1285. ARTICLE: Tapping the State Court Resource., 44 Vand. L. Rev. 953 (1991)
1286. NOTE: Quick Termination of Insubstantial Civil Rights Claims: Qualified Immunity and Procedural
Fairness., 38 Vand. L. Rev. 1543 (1985) 1287. RELEASE-DISMISSAL AGREEMENT VALIDITY - From Per Se Invalidity to Conditional Validity, and
Now Turning Back to Per Se Invalidity, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 1135 (1994) 1288. TO BE OR NOT TO BE: OPT-IN STATUS UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH
PENALTY ACT, 25 Vt. L. Rev. 603 (2001)25 Vt. L. Rev. 603 p.603
1289. CASE NOTE: Hudson v. McMillian: When Does a Prisoner Beating Become Cruel and Unusual Punishment?, 20 W. St. U. L. Rev. 201 (1992)
20 W. St. U. L. Rev. 201 p.201
1290. ARTICLE: REASSESSING THE PURPOSES OF FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION, 42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 247 (2007)
42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 247 p.247
Page 144
1291. ARTICLE: ENGLE V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.: LESSONS IN STATE CLASS ACTIONS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND JURY DECISION-MAKING MANAGING PUNITIVE DAMAGES: A ROLE FOR MANDATORY "LIMITED GENEROSITY" CLASSES AND ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS?, 36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1043 (2001)
36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1043 p.1043
1292. ARTICLE: Is the Family a Federal Question?, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 131 (2009)66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 131 p.131
1293. SYMPOSIUM: THE JURISPRUDENTIAL LEGACY OF THE WARREN COURT: Institutional Role of the Federal Courts: Come Back to the Nickel and Five: * Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law, 59 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1203 (2002)
59 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1203 p.1203
1294. ARTICLE: THE ASYMMETRY OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, 76 Wash. L. Rev. 1067 (2001)76 Wash. L. Rev. 1067 p.1067
1295. ARTICLE: MISSOURI V. JENKINS AND THE DE FACTO ABANDONMENT OF COURT-ENFORCED DESEGREGATION, 71 Wash. L. Rev. 597 (1996)
1296. NOTE & COMMENT: WASHINGTON COURTS GET STINGY: IMPROPER DENIAL OF ATTORNEY'S
FEES UNDER AND 1988, 70 Wash. L. Rev. 491 (1995) 1297. COMMENT: CIVIL RIGHTS: A CALL FOR QUALIFIED LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY FOR CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER, 66 Wash. L. Rev. 169 (1991) 1298. RECENT DEVELOPMENT: FEDERAL COURT INTERPRETATION OF THE WASHINGTON
OBSCENITY STATUTE -- Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 105 S. Ct. 2794 (1985)., 61 Wash. L. Rev. 1237 (1986)
1299. RECENT DEVELOPMENT: CONFRONTING THE FICTIONS OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT:
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 104 S. Ct. 900 (1984)., 60 Wash. L. Rev. 407 (1985) 1300. EVOLVING VOICES IN LAND USE LAW: A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF DANIEL R. MANDELKER:
Part II: Discussions on the National Level: Chapter 3: Takings Issues: Supreme Bait & Switch: The Ripeness Ruse in Regulatory Takings, 3 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 99 (2000)
1301. ARTICLE: PROCEEDING GEOMETRICALLY: RETHINKING PARALLEL STATE AND FEDERAL
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, 18 Whittier L. Rev. 499 (1997) 1302. ARTICLE: INNOCENCE, HARMLESS ERROR, AND FEDERAL WRONGFUL CONVICTION LAW, 2005
Wis. L. Rev. 35 (2005)2005 Wis. L. Rev. 35 p.35
1303. COMMENT: STATUTORY INDEMNIFICATION IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS BASED ON POLICE MISCONDUCT: CHOOSING A FORUM., 1988 Wis. L. Rev. 605 (1988)
1988 Wis. L. Rev. 605 p.605
Page 145
1304. ARTICLE: THE FINAL AUTHORITY ANALYSIS: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983., 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 633 (1986)
1986 Wis. L. Rev. 633 p.636
1305. ARTICLE: THE RATIONALES FOR FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF STUDENT RIGHTS LITIGATION., 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 1315 (1984)
1984 Wis. L. Rev. 1315 p.1331
1306. 1975 Wis. L. Rev. 5231975 Wis. L. Rev. 523 p.534
1307. ARTICLE: The Extraordinary Execution of Billy Vickers, the Banality of Death, and the Demise of Post-Conviction Review, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 521 (2004)
1308. ARTICLE: Understanding Prophylactic Remedies Through the Looking Glass of Bush V. Gore, 11 Wm. &
Mary Bill of Rts. J. 343 (2002) 1309. SYMPOSIUM: CIVIL RIGHTS WITHOUT REMEDIES: VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER TITLE VII,
SECTION 1983, AND TITLE IX, 7 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 755 (1999) 1310. ARTICLE: Forum Allocation in Toxic Tort Cases: Lessons from the Tobacco Litigation and Other Recent
Developments, 26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 93 (2001) 1311. ARTICLE: THE CURIOUS COMPLICATIONS WITH BACK-END OPT-OUT RIGHTS, 49 Wm. & Mary L.
Rev. 373 (2007)49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 373 p.373
1312. ARTICLE: MAKING FEDERALISM DOCTRINE: FIDELITY, INSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCE, AND COMPENSATING ADJUSTMENTS, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733 (2005)
1313. 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733
46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733 p.1733
1314. ARTICLE: GAZING INTO THE CRYSTAL BALL: REFLECTIONS ON THE STANDARDS STATE JUDGES SHOULD USE TO ASCERTAIN FEDERAL LAW, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1143 (1999)
40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1143 p.1143
1315. NOTE: MAPPING THE MORASS: APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT TO JUDICIAL ELECTIONS, 33 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1251 (1992)
1316. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 439 (1990)
1317. ARTICLE: THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS ON THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, 30
Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 499 (1989) 1318. ARTICLE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT: EXPERIENCES IN THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT, 23 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 81 (1997) 1319. ARTICLES: THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION AS A SWORD: THE EVOLVING PRIVATE CAUSE OF
Page 146
ACTION, 20 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 313 (1994) 1320. UNRAVELING THE "IN LIEU OF WHAT" TEST: TITLEVII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
DAMAGES AND THE PERSONAL INJURYEXCLUSIONUnited States v. Burke, 112 S. Ct. 1867 (1992)., 19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1019 (1993)
19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1019 p.1019
1321. ARTICLE: Experimentalist Equal Protection, 22 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 261 (2004) 1322. ESSAY: Equity and Hierarchy: Reflections on the Harris Execution., 102 Yale L.J. 255 (1992)
102 Yale L.J. 255 p.261
1323. NOTE: (Un)Luckey v. Miller: The Case for a Structural Injunction to Improve Indigent Defense Services, 101 Yale L.J. 481 (1991)
1324. NOTE: Section 1983 in State Court: A Remedy for Unconstitutional State Taxation., 95 Yale L.J. 414
(1985) 1325. ARTICLE: Abstention, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of the Judicial Function., 94 Yale L.J. 71
(1984)94 Yale L.J. 71 p.86
1326. NOTE: Making the Old Federalism Work: Section 1983 and the Rights of Grant-in-Aid Beneficiaries, 92 Yale L.J. 1001 (1983)
1327. NOTE: Making the Violation Fit the Remedy: The Intent Standard and Equal Protection Law, 92 Yale L.J.
328 (1982) 1328. 86 Yale L.J. 1103
86 Yale L.J. 1103 p.1128
1329. 86 Yale L.J. 103586 Yale L.J. 1035 p.1040
1330. 86 Yale L.J. 101986 Yale L.J. 1019 p.1028
1331. 82 Yale L.J. 136382 Yale L.J. 1363 p.136482 Yale L.J. 1363 p.1395
1332. SYMPOSIUM: TREATIES AND DOMESTIC LAW AFTER MEDELL'IN V. TEXAS: A PRIMER ON TREATIES AND 1983 AFTER MEDELL'IN V. TEXAS, 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 35 (2009)
1333. SYMPOSIUM: GOD'S LAW IN THE PEOPLE'S LAW: A DISCUSSION OF CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
ARISING FROM RELIGION AND THE LAW: THE SANCTITY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF MINORITY FAITHS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THREE HYPOTHESES, 6 RRGC 21 (2006)
Page 147
ANNOTATIONS ( 3 Citing Annotations )
1334. Prohibition under anti-injunction statute (28 USCS sec. 2283) of federal court from granting injunction to stay proceedings in state court--Supreme Court cases, 66 L. Ed. 2d 903, secs. 2, 7, 11
1335. Supreme Court's rule, and exceptions to rule, against federal judicial intervention in pending or threatened
state criminal proceedings, 44 L. Ed. 2d 692, secs. 3, 4, 7 1336. Supreme Court's construction of Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS sec. 1983) providing private right of
action for violation of federal rights, 43 L. Ed. 2d 833, secs. 3, 16 TREATISE CITATIONS ( 39 Citing Sources )
1337. 6-59 California Forms of Pleading and Practice--Annotated @ 59.16 1338. 1-2 Civil Rights Actions P 2.04
1339. 2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.01
1340. 2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.10
1341. 2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.18
1342. 2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.20
1343. 2-7 Civil Rights Actions P 7.01
1344. 7-F17 Civil Rights Actions @ F17.02
1345. 3Ap1-G14E Condemnation Procedures & Techniques - Forms @ G14E.06
1346. 8-G14E Condemnation Procedures & Techniques - Forms @ G14E.06
1347. Ch. App. 11-11 Constitutional Rights of Prisoners APPENDIX 4
1348. 3-54 Criminal Defense Techniques @ 54.02
1349. 2-6 EDUCATION LAW @ 6.22
1350. 5-12 EDUCATION LAW @ 12.03
1351. 1-2 Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure @ 2.3
1352. 1-10 IL Governmental Tort & Civil Rights Liability @ 10.01
1353. Manual of Federal Practice 5th @ 1.115
1354. 1-2 Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal @ 2A-4
1355. 5-87 Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 87.03
1356. 17A-120 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 120.21
1357. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.06
Page 148
1358. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.07 1359. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.09
1360. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.31
1361. 17A-122 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 122.05
1362. 18-133 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 133.32
1363. 1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.20
1364. 1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.25
1365. 1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.40
1366. 4-155 Moore's Federal Rules Pamphlet @ 2283.2
1367. 8-G14E Nichols on Eminent Domain @ G14E.06
1368. 8-29 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 3
1369. 8-29 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 29.02
1370. 4-62 Texas Torts and Remedies @ 62.01
1371. 4-62 Texas Torts and Remedies @ 62.02
1372. 4-62 Texas Torts and Remedies @ 62.08
1373. 4-9 Treatise on Environmental Law @ 9.04
1374. 1-15 Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual @ 15.01
1375. 1-15 Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual @ 15.03
BRIEFS ( 253 Citing Briefs )
1376. POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY v. HARRINGTON, 2008 U.S. Briefs 1065, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 904 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009)
1377. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM. & RUSSELL DEVER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 887 (U.S. Oct. 29, 2008) 1378. VAN DE KAMP v. GOLDSTEIN, 2007 U.S. Briefs 854, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 793 (U.S. Sept. 5,
2008) 1379. Panse v. Norman, 2008 U.S. Briefs 535, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1605 (U.S. Sept. 3, 2008)
1380. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 750
(U.S. Aug. 29, 2008) 1381. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 751
(U.S. Aug. 29, 2008)
Page 149
1382. HAYWOOD v. DROWN, 2007 U.S. Briefs 10374, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 732 (U.S. Aug. 20, 2008) 1383. Stewart v. Childers, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1433, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1219 (U.S. May 13, 2008)
1384. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. MARTINEZ, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1096, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2646
(U.S. Apr. 25, 2008) 1385. WILCOX v. UNITED STATES ex rel. STONER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1336, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1845
(U.S. Apr. 21, 2008) 1386. GILGALLON v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1018, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1730 (U.S.
Mar. 10, 2008) 1387. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. MARTINEZ, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1096, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2620
(U.S. Feb. 19, 2008) 1388. RAISER v. KONO, 2007 U.S. Briefs 947, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1735 (U.S. Jan. 3, 2008)
1389. PETERS v. VILLAGE OF CLIFTON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 635, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2697 (U.S. Dec.
17, 2007) 1390. AKL v. JUDGE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 687, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3217 (U.S. Nov. 21, 2007)
1391. BRYAN v. BELLSOUTH TELCOMS., INC., 2007 U.S. Briefs 458, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2996
(U.S. Oct. 1, 2007) 1392. BARR LABS., INC. v. SAMANTA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 20, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2368 (U.S. Aug. 2,
2007) 1393. AKL v. VIRGINIA HOSP. CTR., 2007 U.S. Briefs 39, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2461 (U.S. July 10,
2007) 1394. Hopkins v. Northbrook Mobile Home Park Corp., 2006 U.S. Briefs 489024, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
3222 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2006) 1395. Castro v. Puerto Rico Hwy., 2006 U.S. Briefs 54815, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2787 (U.S. Dec. 12,
2006) 1396. WALLACE v. KATO, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1240, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 706 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2006)
1397. JONES v. BOCK, 2005 U.S. Briefs 7058, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 718 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2006)
1398. TORROMEO v. TOWN OF FREMONT, 2006 U.S. Briefs 112C, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2777 (U.S.
July 21, 2006) 1399. LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 8820, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 477 (U.S. June 26, 2006)
1400. HILL v. McDONOUGH, 2005 U.S. Briefs 8794, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 392 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2006)
1401. LAWRENCE v. ANTONUCCI, 2005 U.S. Briefs 987A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1812 (U.S. Dec. 22,
2005) 1402. VINES v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1615A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1438 (U.S. Dec. 20, 2005)
Page 150
1403. GOLIN v. ALLENBY, 2005 U.S. Briefs 791B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2055 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005) 1404. LOVE v. VAN WATTS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 598B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1847 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)
1405. LOVE v. VAN WATTS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 598, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2570 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)
1406. SCHWIEGERATH v. THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DIST., the Dist., THE DIST. COURT OF DOUGLAS
COUNTY, the Court, ANGELA ARKIN, the Judge BETH-ELLIOTT DUMMLER, the Magistrate, CHERYL LANE, the Clerk of the Court, ELIZABETH HOLMAN, the Special Advocate, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1730, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1995 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2005)
1407. AMAYA v. PITNER, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1015, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1621 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2005)
1408. VINES v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1615A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1552 (U.S. Sept. 19, 2005) 1409. NORTH PACIFICA LLC v. CITY OF PACIFICA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 604A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1850 (U.S. Sept. 13, 2005) 1410. BURKYBILE v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST.,
2005 U.S. Briefs 437A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1557 (U.S. Sept. 13, 2005) 1411. JMYK v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASS'N, 2005 U.S. Briefs 499, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1405
(U.S. Aug. 11, 2005) 1412. SCHWIEGERATH v. THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DIST., the Dist., THE DIST. COURT OF DOUGLAS
COUNTY, the Court, BETH-ELLIOTT DUMMLER, the Magistrate, CHERYL LANE, the Clerk of the Court, ELIZABETH HOLMAN, the Special Advocate, &, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1730, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1994 (U.S. June 20, 2005)
1413. LOMMEN v. MCINTYRE, 2005 U.S. Briefs 65A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1183 (U.S. June 8, 2005)
1414. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, 2004 U.S. Briefs 278, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 151 (U.S.
Feb. 10, 2005) 1415. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, 2004 U.S. Briefs 278, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 148 (U.S.
Feb. 9, 2005) 1416. SAN REMO HOTEL L.P. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2004 U.S. Briefs 340, 2005 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 53 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) 1417. SAN REMO HOTEL L.P. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2004 U.S. Briefs 340, 2005 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 67 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) 1418. LIGHTHOUSE INST. FOR EVANGELISM, INC. v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH, 2004 U.S. Briefs 555, 2004
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 892 (U.S. Oct. 22, 2004) 1419. WILKINSON v. DOTSON, 2003 U.S. Briefs 287, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 679 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2004)
1420. NELSON v. CAMPBELL, 2003 U.S. Briefs 6821, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 254 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2004)
1421. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1105 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2003)
1422. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1025 (U.S. Dec. 17, 2003)
Page 151
1423. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 903 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2003) 1424. MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 9065, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 827 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2003)
1425. MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 9065, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 752 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2003)
1426. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1408 (U.S. July 16, 2003)
1427. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1405 (U.S. June 3, 2003)
1428. BREUER v. JIM'S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC., 2002 U.S. Briefs 337, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
399 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2003) 1429. INYO COUNTY v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OF THE BISHOP CMTY OF THE BISHOP COLONY,
2002 U.S. Briefs 281, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 103 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2003) 1430. CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1444, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 621 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2002)
1431. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. v. HENSON, 2001 U.S. Briefs 757, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
288 (U.S. June 4, 2002) 1432. GONZAGA UNIV. v. JOHN DOE, 2001 U.S. Briefs 679, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 121 (U.S. Feb. 25,
2002) 1433. PORTER v. NUSSLE, 2000 U.S. Briefs 853, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 972 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2000)
1434. NEVADA v. HICKS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1994, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1100 (U.S. July 12, 2000)
1435. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA BD. OF TRUSTEES v. GARRETT, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1240, 2000 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 552 (U.S. June 22, 2000) 1436. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. ANTONIO J. MORRISON, ET AL. CHRISTY
BRZONKALA, PETITIONER v. ANTONIO J. MORRISON, ET AL., 1999 U.S. Briefs 5, 1999 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 212 (U.S. Nov. 12, 1999)
1437. CITY OF MONTEREY, Petitioner, vs. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. AND MONTEREY-
DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION, Respondents., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1235, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 385 (U.S. July 31, 1998)
1438. CITY OF MONTEREY, Petitioner, vs. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. AND MONTEREY-
DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION, Respondents., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1234, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 629 (U.S. July 31, 1998)
1439. BAKER v. GMC, 1996 U.S. Briefs 653, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 397 (U.S. July 21, 1997)
1440. JEFFERSON v. CITY OF TARRANT, 1996 U.S. Briefs 957, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 540 (U.S. May
15, 1997) 1441. JOHNSON v. FANKELL, 1996 U.S. Briefs 292, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 8 (U.S. Jan. 6, 1997)
1442. JEFFERSON v. CITY OF TARRANT, 1996 U.S. Briefs 957, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1276 (U.S. Nov.
27, 1996) 1443. CULP v. HOOD, 1996 U.S. Briefs 696, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1336 (U.S. Oct. 28, 1996)
Page 152
1444. BLESSING v. FREESTONE, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1441, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1383 (U.S. Oct. 17, 1996)
1445. BLESSING v. FREESTONE, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1441, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 439 (U.S. July 26,
1996) 1446. BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMM'RS OF BRYAN COUNTY v. BROWN, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1100, 1996 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 415 (U.S. July 24, 1996) 1447. IDAHO v. COEUR d'ALENE TRIBE, 1994 U.S. Briefs 1474, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 357 (U.S. July
1, 1996) 1448. BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMM'RS OF BRYAN COUNTY v. BROWN, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1100, 1996 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 344 (U.S. June 21, 1996) 1449. CARRIE JAFFEE, as Special Administrator for Ricky Allen, Sr., Deceased, Petitioner, v. MARYLU
REDMOND, Hoffman Estates Police Officer, and VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILLINOIS, Respondents., 1995 U.S. Briefs 266, 1995 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 593 (U.S. Nov. 30, 1995)
1450. FRANK BASIL McFARLAND, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 159 (U.S. Mar. 17, 1994)
1451. FRANK BASIL McFARLAND, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 89 (U.S. Feb. 14, 1994)
1452. FRANK BASIL MCFARLAND, Petitioner, vs. JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 90 (U.S. Feb. 11, 1994)
1453. FRANK BASIL McFARLAND, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 75 (U.S. Jan. 21, 1994)
1454. KEVIN ALBRIGHT, Petitioner, v. ROGER OLIVER, et al., Respondents., 1992 U.S. Briefs 833, 1993 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 238 (U.S. Apr. 29, 1993) 1455. BRECHT v. ABRAHAMSON, 1991 U.S. Briefs 7358, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 694 (U.S. Sept. 10,
1992) 1456. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM D. FORD, Respondent.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS L. JOHNSON, Respondent., 1991 U.S. Briefs 779, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 268 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1992)
1457. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, et al, Petitioners, against FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent.,
1991 U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 192 (U.S. Mar. 5, 1992) 1458. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent., 1991
U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 194 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1992) 1459. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., et al., Petitioners, v. FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent., 1991 U.S. Briefs
542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 195 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1992) 1460. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, et al., Petitioners, against FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent.,
Page 153
1991 U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 196 (U.S. Mar. 2, 1992) 1461. J. C. KEENEY, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner, v. JOSE TAMAYO-REYES,
Respondent., 1990 U.S. Briefs 1859, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 589 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1991) 1462. HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASS'N v. AG OF TEXAS, 1990 U.S. Briefs 813, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 915
(U.S. Apr. 8, 1991) 1463. MARK HOWLETT, a minor by and through Elizabeth Howlett, his mother, natural guardian and friend,
Petitioner, v. SCOTT ROSE, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS for Pinellas County, Florida; WILLIAM GREY, THOMAS PETIT, and THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondents., 1989 U.S. Briefs 5383, 1990 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 738 (U.S. Feb. 8, 1990)
1464. YELLOW FREIGHT SYS. v. DONNELLY, 1989 U.S. Briefs 431, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 258 (U.S.
Dec. 11, 1989) 1465. LEWIS v. CONTINENTAL BANK CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 1955, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 929 (U.S.
Oct. 3, 1989) 1466. MISSOURI v. JENKINS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1150, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 731 (U.S. Aug. 28, 1989)
1467. TAFFLIN v. LEVITT, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1650, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 895 (U.S. Aug. 16, 1989)
1468. SPALLONE v. UNITED STATES, 1988 U.S. Briefs 854, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 559 (U.S. Apr. 20,
1989) 1469. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC., Petitioner, v. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, et al. Respondents., 1988 U.S. Briefs 348, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 419 (U.S. Apr. 18, 1989)
1470. NEW ORLEANS PUB. SERV. v. COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 348, 1989 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 420 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1989) 1471. JETT v. DALLAS INDEP. SCH. DIST., 1987 U.S. Briefs 2084, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1320 (U.S.
Feb. 3, 1989) 1472. NORMAN JETT, Petitioner, vs. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent., 1987 U.S.
Briefs 2084, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1316 (U.S. Jan. 4, 1989) 1473. NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1281, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 126 (U.S. Dec. 27,
1988) 1474. TYRONE VICTOR HARDIN, Petitioner, v. DENNIS STRAUB, Respondent., 1987 U.S. Briefs 7023, 1988
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 516 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1988) 1475. CHEMA v. UNITED STATES, 1988 U.S. Briefs 856, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 103 (U.S. Nov. 23,
1988) 1476. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1541 (U.S. Aug. 3, 1988) 1477. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1543 (U.S. Aug. 3, 1988) 1478. MESA v. CALIFORNIA, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1206, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1564 (U.S. July 21, 1988)
Page 154
1479. OWENS v. OKURE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 56, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1321 (U.S. July 6, 1988)
1480. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1539 (U.S. June 17, 1988) 1481. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1537 (U.S. Mar. 28, 1988) 1482. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 820 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1988)
1483. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 852 (U.S. Feb. 20, 1988)
1484. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 853 (U.S. Feb. 19, 1988)
1485. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 818 (U.S. Jan. 27, 1988)
1486. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 816 (U.S. Jan. 20, 1988)
1487. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1536 (U.S. Jan. 11, 1988) 1488. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 847 (U.S. Jan. 11, 1988)
1489. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 56 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1987)
1490. WEST v. ATKINS, 1987 U.S. Briefs 5096, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 70 (U.S. Dec. 10, 1987)
1491. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 94 (U.S. Sept. 21, 1987)
1492. AGENCY HOLDING CORP. v. MALLEY-DUFF & ASSOCS., 1986 U.S. Briefs 497, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1278 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1987) 1493. AGENCY HOLDING CORP. v. MALLEY-DUFF & ASSOCS., 1986 U.S. Briefs 497, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1279 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1987) 1494. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 971 (U.S. Nov.
4, 1986) 1495. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 974 (U.S. Nov.
4, 1986) 1496. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 978 (U.S. Nov. 4,
1986) 1497. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 976 (U.S. Sept.
5, 1986) 1498. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 969 (U.S. May
31, 1986) 1499. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 979 (U.S. May 1,
1986) 1500. WRIGHT v. CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT & HOUS. AUTH., 1985 U.S. Briefs 5915, 1986 U.S.
Page 155
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 378 (U.S. Mar. 21, 1986) 1501. O'Connor v. Ortega, 1985 U.S. Briefs 530, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 491 (U.S. Mar. 18, 1986)
1502. O'CONNOR v. ORTEGA, 1985 U.S. Briefs 530, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 495 (U.S. Feb. 10, 1986)
1503. MEMPHIS COMMUNITY SCHS. v. STACHURA, 1985 U.S. Briefs 410, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 437
(U.S. Dec. 12, 1985) 1504. THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, et al., Petitioners, vs. ROBERT B. ELLIOTT, Respondent., 1985 U.S.
Briefs 588, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 490 (U.S. Oct. 3, 1985) 1505. PARSONS STEEL, INC. v. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1214 (U.S. Aug. 26, 1985) 1506. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, v. SCOTT E. EWING, Respondent., 1984
U.S. Briefs 1273, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 838 (U.S. Aug. 12, 1985) 1507. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS and MELBA L. PARSONS, and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in
Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1213 (U.S. Aug. 7, 1985)
1508. BERTOLD J. PEMBAUR, M.D., Petitioner, vs. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, HAMILTON COUNTY,
OHIO, HON. NORMAN A. MURDOCK, HON. JOSEPH M. DeCOURCY, JR., AND HON. ROBERT A. TAFT, II, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1160, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1231 (U.S. July 31, 1985)
1509. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS, MELBA L. PARSONS; and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in
Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1210 (U.S. May 2, 1985)
1510. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS and MELBA L. PARSONS; and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in
Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1209 (U.S. Apr. 12, 1985)
1511. ROY E. DANIELS, Petitioner, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, Respondent., 1984 U.S. Briefs 5872, 1985 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1043 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1985) 1512. ATASCADERO STATE HOSP. v. SCANLON, 1984 U.S. Briefs 351, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1499
(U.S. Mar. 4, 1985) 1513. ATASCADERO STATE HOSP. v. SCANLON, 1984 U.S. Briefs 351, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1501
(U.S. Feb. 25, 1985) 1514. SPENCER v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 1984 U.S. Briefs 249, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1425 (U.S. Jan. 14, 1985) 1515. SPENCER v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 1984 U.S. Briefs 249, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1426 (U.S. Jan. 2, 1985) 1516. RICHARD WILSON and MARTIN VIGIL, Petitioners, v. GARY GARCIA, Respondent., 1983 U.S. Briefs
2146, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1174 (U.S. Dec. 11, 1984)
Page 156
1517. JEFFREY MAREK, THOMAS WADYCKI, and LAWRENCE RHODE, Petitioners, v. ALFRED W. CHESNY, Respondent., 1983 U.S. Briefs 1437, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1049 (U.S. Sept. 14, 1984)
1518. SPRINGFIELD TWP. SCH. DIST. v. KNOLL, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1889, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1207
(U.S. May 20, 1984) 1519. DAVIS v. LEE, 1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 666 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1984)
1520. BURNETT v. GRATTAN, 1983 U.S. Briefs 264, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 81 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1984)
1521. HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Appellant, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees; PORTLOCK
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellants, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees; KAHALA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees., 1983 U.S. Briefs 141, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 139 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1984)
1522. WINSTON v. LEE, 1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 450 (U.S. Jan. 20, 1984)
1523. ANDREW J. WINSTON and AUBREY M. DAVIS, JR., Petitioners, v. RUDOLPH LEE, JR., Respondent.,
1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1138 (U.S. Dec. 13, 1983) 1524. INS v. LOPEZ-MENDOZA, 1983 U.S. Briefs 491, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1065 (U.S. Sept. 22,
1983) 1525. DAVIS v. SCHERER, 1983 U.S. Briefs 490, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1003 (U.S. Sept. 21, 1983)
1526. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, vs. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et
al., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 5 (U.S. Aug. 19, 1983) 1527. PORTLOCK COMMUNITY ASS'N v. MIDKIFF, 1983 U.S. Briefs 236, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1020
(U.S. Aug. 10, 1983) 1528. PORTLOCK COMMUNITY ASS'N v. MIDKIFF, 1983 U.S. Briefs 236, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1137
(U.S. Aug. 10, 1983) 1529. GLADYS PULLIAM, Petitioner v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN and JESSE W. NICHOLSON, Respondents, 1982
U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 154 (U.S. July 28, 1983) 1530. GLADYS PULLIAM, Petitioner, v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN, ET AL., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432,
1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 155 (U.S. July 26, 1983) 1531. GLADYS PULLIAM, Magistrate for the County of Culpeper, Virginia, Petitioner, v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN
and JESSE W. NICHOLSON, Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 209 (U.S. July 25, 1983)
1532. SPRINGFIELD TWP. SCH. DIST. v. KNOLL, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1889, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1194
(U.S. June 21, 1983) 1533. PULLIAM v. NICHOLSON, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 159 (U.S. June 9, 1983)
1534. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant, v. CONSTRUCTION
LABORERS VACATION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Appellees., 1982 U.S. Briefs 695, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1383 (U.S. Mar. 17, 1983)
1535. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent., 1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1353 (U.S. Mar. 16, 1983)
Page 157
1536. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, vs. THE WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 9 (U.S. Feb. 28, 1983)
1537. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, v. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET
AL., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 10 (U.S. Feb. 28, 1983) 1538. PULLIAM v. NICHOLSON, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 161 (U.S. Feb. 25, 1983)
1539. DR. ETHEL MIGRA, Petitioner, v. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 11 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1983) 1540. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner, v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent., 1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1352 (U.S. Jan. 31, 1983) 1541. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., PETITIONER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1354 (U.S. Jan. 28, 1983) 1542. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, et al. Petitioners, v. MARC FELDMAN AND
EDWARD J. HICKEY, JR. Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 1335, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 435 (U.S. Oct. 22, 1982)
1543. FRANK MARSH, et al., Petitioners, v. ERNEST CHAMBERS, Respondent., 1982 U.S. Briefs 23, 1982 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 913 (U.S. Aug. 2, 1982) 1544. MORGAN M. FINLEY, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Petitioner, vs. TONI MURRAY,
Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 2205, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1082 (U.S. Mar. 10, 1982) 1545. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., Petitioners, v.
CLAIBORNE HARDWARE COMPANY, et al., Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 202, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1742 (U.S. Feb. 5, 1982)
1546. MIDDLESEX COUNTY ETHICS COMM. v. GARDEN STATE BAR ASS'N, 1981 U.S. Briefs 460, 1982 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 166 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1982) 1547. GEORGIA PATSY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, a Body
Corporate, For and On Behalf of, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1739 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1982)
1548. GEORGIA PATSY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A BODY
CORPORATE, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Respondents., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2050 (U.S. Dec. 9, 1981)
1549. Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 1980 U.S. Briefs 6045, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 503 (U.S. Oct.
19, 1981) 1550. KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONSTR. CORP., 1980 U.S. Briefs 6045, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 505
(U.S. Oct. 15, 1981) 1551. FINLEY v. MURRAY, 1980 U.S. Briefs 2205, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1256 (U.S. Oct. 1, 1981)
1552. ENGLE v. ISAAC, 1980 U.S. Briefs 1430, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1677 (U.S. Aug. 10, 1981)
1553. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Petitioner, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY and
Page 158
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1925, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 590 (U.S. May 15, 1981)
1554. PATSY v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF FLORIDA ex rel. FLORIDA INT'L UNIV., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874,
1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2048 (U.S. May 7, 1981) 1555. CITY OF NEWPORT v. FACT CONCERTS, INC., 1980 U.S. Briefs 396, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1086 (U.S. Mar. 23, 1981) 1556. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, etc., et al., Petitioners, vs. LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, etc.,
Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1965 (U.S. Oct. 24, 1980) 1557. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, etc., et al., Petitioners. vs. La SALLE NATIONAL BANK, Trustee, etc.,
Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2619 (U.S. Aug. 4, 1980) 1558. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. CALIFORNIA and THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, Petitioners, vs. GUILLERMO GALLEGO MUNOZ, HUMBERTO MARTINEZ, JUAN DE LEON, Respondents., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1003, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2613 (U.S. July 25, 1980)
1559. ALLEN v. MCCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1655 (U.S. July 7, 1980)
1560. MARVIN ALLEN, STEVEN JACOBSMEYER, UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, AND THE CITY OF ST.
LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petioners, v. WILLIE MCCURRY, Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2545 (U.S. June 30, 1980)
1561. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL v. MUNOZ, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1003, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2174 (U.S.
May 24, 1980) 1562. ALLEN v. MCCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1653 (U.S. May 2, 1980)
1563. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2430 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1980)
1564. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2432 (U.S. Apr. 3, 1980)
1565. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2431 (U.S. Mar. 7, 1980)
1566. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2429 (U.S. Mar. 6, 1980)
1567. ROSEWELL v. LA SALLE NAT'L BANK, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1964 (U.S.
Feb. 25, 1980) 1568. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1980 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1942 (U.S. Feb. 14, 1980) 1569. ROSEWELL v. LA SALLE NAT'L BANK, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1925 (U.S.
Jan. 26, 1980) 1570. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1980 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1941 (U.S. Jan. 8, 1980) 1571. HARRISON v. PPG INDUS., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1918, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1206 (U.S. Dec. 22,
1979) 1572. ALLEN v. McCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1022 (U.S. Dec. 14, 1979)
Page 159
1573. CITY OF ROME v. UNITED STATES, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1840, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1416 (U.S.
Sept. 21, 1979) 1574. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1979 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1142 (U.S. Sept. 18, 1979) 1575. VANCE v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1588, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1288
(U.S. Aug. 25, 1979) 1576. MARTINEZ v. CALIFORNIA, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1268, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1705 (U.S. Aug. 20,
1979) 1577. Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 5703, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 554 (2d Cir.
Apr. 10, 2007) 1578. DR v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 351095, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1306 (2d Cir. Aug. 7,
2006) 1579. ABBAS v. DIXON, 2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 6219, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1033 (2d Cir. May 26,
2006) 1580. EVANDRO v. CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGMT. SERV., 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 9150,
2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 70 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2003) 1581. JIRICKO v. ALLISON, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4609, 2007 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 40 (3d Cir. Oct. 4,
2007) 1582. JIRICKO v. ALLISON, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4609, 2007 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 41 (3d Cir. Aug.
18, 2007) 1583. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.
Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 2247 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2006) 1584. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.
Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 2246 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2006) 1585. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.
Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1898 (3d Cir. July 31, 2006) 1586. HAWKINS v. PORITZ, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4361, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1518 (3d Cir. Dec.
16, 2005) 1587. TURNER v. CRAWFORD, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 660529, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1041 (3d Cir.
Sept. 26, 2005) 1588. DeSantis v. Franklin, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3582, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 476 (3d Cir. Dec.
20, 2004) 1589. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4528, 2003 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 65 (3d Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) 1590. SOUTH CAMDEN CITIZENS IN ACTION v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROTECTION, 2001 U.S.
3rd Cir. Briefs 2224, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (3d Cir. July 26, 2001)
Page 160
1591. SOUTH CAMDEN CITIZENS IN ACTION v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROTECTION, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 2224, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 194 (3d Cir. July 13, 2001)
1592. THORN v. JEFFERSON-PILOT LIFE INS. CO., 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1162, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 65 (4th Cir. May 26, 2005) 1593. TALBOT v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH CTR. COMM'N, 1996 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1915, 1996
U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 27 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 1996) 1594. HEALTH NET, INC. v. WOOLEY, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 423
(5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2007) 1595. HEALTH NET, INC. v. DONELON, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 422
(5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2007) 1596. ASHER v. A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC., 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30267, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 481 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2007) 1597. HEALTH NET, INC. v. WOOLEY, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 421
(5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) 1598. STROMAN v. RICHARDSON, 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20095, 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 457 (5th
Cir. Apr. 18, 2006) 1599. In re Dr. Vines v. Univ. of LA, 2003 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 31172, 2004 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 52 (5th
Cir. Dec. 1, 2004) 1600. DR. VINES v. UNIV. OF LA, 2003 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 31172, 2004 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 49 (5th Cir.
Apr. 7, 2004) 1601. NEWBY v. ANDREW S. FASTOW; KINNETH L. LAY, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 35 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2002) 1602. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 34 (5th Cir. Oct. 15,
2002) 1603. NEWBY v. ANDREW S. FASTOW; KINNETH L. LAY, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 33 (5th Cir. Sept. 10, 2002) 1604. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 196 (5th Cir. May
28, 2002) 1605. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 197 (5th Cir. May
22, 2002) 1606. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 200 (5th Cir. May
15, 2002) 1607. Newby v. Enron Corp., 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 198 (5th Cir. May
14, 2002) 1608. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (5th Cir. Apr.
27, 2002) 1609. STROMAN v. GRILLO, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 768894, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1028 (7th Cir.
Page 161
Sept. 26, 2006) 1610. SCHMITT v. SCHMITT, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 1470, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 477 (7th Cir.
Aug. 1, 2002) 1611. REED v. CHOICE HOTELS INT'L, 2009 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1351, 2009 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 535
(8th Cir. June 1, 2009) 1612. ANDERSON-TULLY v. MCDANIEL, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 3469, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 64
(8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) 1613. In re THE FAMILY OF KARI ANN JACOBSEN, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 358725, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 200 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2005) 1614. HERRANS v. MENDER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 1072B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1765 (D.P.R.
June 7, 2006) 1615. NICHIPORUK v. BOARD OF EDUC. of the PALMYRA-MACEDON CENT. SCH. DIST., 2005 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Briefs 6315, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 129 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2005) 1616. DOE v. BARROW COUNTY, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 72704, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1984
(N.D. Ga. July 8, 2005) 1617. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 10 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 2001) 1618. CHUNG v. Superior Court of California, 2009 CA S. Ct. Briefs 70087, 2009 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 608
(Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) 1619. VASQUEZ v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES & DOE, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs 57933, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2338 (Cal. Nov. 5, 2007) 1620. PERRYMAN v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs 56334, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
2107 (Cal. Sept. 10, 2007) 1621. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. AGUSTIN, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 15092A, 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
3274 (Cal. App. May 7, 2007) 1622. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. AGUSTIN, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 15092A, 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1225 (Cal. App. Feb. 14, 2007) 1623. MANNING v. MINING & MINERALS DIV. OF THE ENERGY, 2004 NM S. Ct. Briefs 500, 2004 NM S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 5 (N.M. Sept. 22, 2004) 1624. PAYNTER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 2001 NY App. Div. Briefs 567, 2001 NY App. Div. Briefs LEXIS 56
(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 10, 2001) 1625. GILLESPIE v. CHAMBERS COUNTY, 2009 TX App. Ct. Briefs 97, 2009 TX App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1220
(Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. Mar. 27, 2009) 1626. BELL v. MORTGAGE ELEC. REGISTRATION SYS., 2006 TX App. Ct. Briefs 427, 2006 TX App. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 772 (Tex. App. Dallas Oct. 24, 2006) 1627. The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
Page 162
1628. The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
MOTIONS ( 105 Citing Motions )
1629. DITOLLA v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions 58037, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions LEXIS 10 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2006)
1630. DITOLLA v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions 2324, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions LEXIS 9 (2d Cir. Aug.
7, 2006) 1631. GWIN v. PYROS, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 527, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8799 (W.D. Pa.
May 5, 2009) 1632. BRENNAN'S, INC. v. BRENNAN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6694, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
13893 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 6, 2009) 1633. PERFORMANCE DRILLING CO. v. H & H WELDING, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9185, 2009 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 2534 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2009) 1634. ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRIBE v. (1) DOUGLAS COMBS, DIST. COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY,
OKLAHOMA, & (2) SHANTONA BITTLE, individually, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 90091, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 33285 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2009)
1635. PARKER v. YUBA COUNTY WATER DIST., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 838572, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 12219 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) 1636. MANDRIGUES v. WORLD SAV., INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 641337, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 13385 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2009) 1637. Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 67892
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2008) 1638. IANTOSCA v. BENISTAR ADMIN SERVS., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11785, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 84605 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2008) 1639. WOODROFFE v. McCOLLUM, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
67891 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2008) 1640. TURNER v. CITY OF AUBURN, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 398886, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
51964 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2008) 1641. GORDON v. CHENEY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1294, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 72057
(D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2008) 1642. RURAL v. CITY, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 937373, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 57998 (D. Kan.
Aug. 8, 2008) 1643. Boivin v. Town of Addison, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 106923, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 21226
(D. Vt. July 17, 2008) 1644. KEATING v. CITY OF MIAMI, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 23005, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
64379 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2008) 1645. KEATING v. CITY OF MIAMI, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 23005, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
64378 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2008)
Page 163
1646. ST. MARY'S HOSP., INC. v. STERICYCLE, INC., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80369, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 22839 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2008) 1647. WISE v. Argentine, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 94655, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 55512 ( E.D.
Mich. May 5, 2008) 1648. CSWS LLC v. VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80747, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 36753 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2008) 1649. CSWS LLC v. VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80747, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 36752 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008) 1650. TAYLOR v. CITY OF NEW YORK DEP'T OF HOUS. PRESERVATION & DEV., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 8150, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15454 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2008) 1651. RURAL v. CITY OF EUDORA, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 856589, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
32279 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2008) 1652. WARD v. SIMPERS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73266, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 25655 (D. Md.
Feb. 20, 2008) 1653. NORTH DAKOTA ex rel. STENEHJEM v. SIMPLE, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 685459, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 42060 (D.N.D. Feb. 19, 2008) 1654. WARD v. SIMPERS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73266, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 25654 (D. Md.
Feb. 8, 2008) 1655. MADERA v. AMERIQUEST MORTG. CO., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1396, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 416 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2008) 1656. McNAMARA v. KAYE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5169, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46234
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2008) 1657. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. VONAGE AMERICA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
334804, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 54852 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2007) 1658. VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. CRESCENT FORD TRUCK SALES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 3127, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 72109 (E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2007) 1659. HOAI v. SUPERIOR COURT of the DIST. of COLUMBIA, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 118111, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53931 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2007) 1660. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 307384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 88844 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2007) 1661. PALMIERI v. TOWN OF BABYLON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 617741, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 86096 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) 1662. 66 EAST ALLENDALE, L.L.C. v. BOROUGH OF SADDLE RIVER, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 22010,
2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53390 (D.N.J. May 15, 2007) 1663. HOGAN v. FRESNO COUNTY, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6408, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
7568 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2007)
Page 164
1664. WILLETTE v. CITY OF WATERVILLE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 95820, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27420 (D. Me. Mar. 30, 2007)
1665. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 735835, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6075
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2007) 1666. BENNETT v. MONETTE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 211600, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 18371
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2007) 1667. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 735835, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5864
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2007) 1668. Smith v. ABN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 45E, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 1323 (S.D. Ohio Mar.
13, 2007) 1669. UNITED STATES v. PENNY LANE PARTNERS, L.P., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 392231, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 17869 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2007) 1670. NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. v. TRANS PAC. OIL CORP., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1418, 2007
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 88967 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2007) 1671. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
1584 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) 1672. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 1586 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) 1673. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
1583 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2007) 1674. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
1585 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2007) 1675. UNITED STATES EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 3768, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 46526 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2006) 1676. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 3768, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46543
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2006) 1677. GRAMBLING v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIV. OF LOUISIANA SYS., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1571, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 47262 (W.D. La. Dec. 11, 2006) 1678. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 439967, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 57540 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2006) 1679. STODDARD v. FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 190578, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 52129 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006) 1680. STODDARD v. FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 190578, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 53007 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006) 1681. DOLL v. NEW HOLSTEIN SCH. DIST., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2820, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 58188 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2006) 1682. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
Page 165
48565 (M.D. La. Oct. 2, 2006) 1683. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
48566 (M.D. La. Sept. 17, 2006) 1684. BOWERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 762872, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 95785 (E.D. Pa. Sept.
13, 2006) 1685. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
48563 (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2006) 1686. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA AREA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 671B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 30822 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2006) 1687. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. McCANN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 8744 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2006) 1688. JAMISON v. TUPELO, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 495387, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 95161
(N.D. Miss. June 30, 2006) 1689. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 8742 (N.D. Fla. June 9, 2006) 1690. DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF LAS VEGAS, L.L.C. v. NEVADA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 480, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7992 (D. Nev. June 5, 2006) 1691. BENNETT v. LAKE COUNTY BD. OF MENTAL RETARDATION & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES,
2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 172812, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 83180 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2006) 1692. FERNANDEZ v. PFIZER, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2236A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 20002
(D.P.R. May 2, 2006) 1693. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 852695, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 102389 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2006) 1694. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 8743 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2006) 1695. REINSMITH v. CASTLE POINT MORTG., INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11168, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 46685 (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2006) 1696. RETAIL INDUS. LEADERS ASS'N v. FIELDER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9510, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 8075 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2006) 1697. REINSMITH v. CASTLE POINT MORTG., INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11168, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 46638 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2006) 1698. PARAGON MGMT. v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - IRS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 487, 2006
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7325 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 6, 2006) 1699. TEAFORD v. CITY OF SELAH, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 53027, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
77228 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2006) 1700. LYTLE v. HARDIN COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7254A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 20618 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2006)
Page 166
1701. COLLIN COUNTY v. SIEMENS BUS. SERVS., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 924220, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 79005 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2006) 1702. BRYAN v. BELLSOUTH TELCOMS., INC., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 228, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 79078 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2006) 1703. OLD STD. LIFE INS. CO. IN REHABILITATION v. DUCKHUNT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 536, 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 24956 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 2005) 1704. OLD STD. LIFE INS. CO. IN REHABILITATION v. DUCKHUNT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 536, 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 24957 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 2005) 1705. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. GRILLO, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2066, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 38461 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2005) 1706. DELCO v. Brown, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 879413, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 36071
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2005) 1707. COREGIS INS. CO. v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1861, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 16372 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1708. COREGIS INS. CO. v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1861, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 16376 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1709. Coregis Ins. Co. v. City Of Harrisburg, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 127843, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 56375 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1710. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 199565, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 52498 (D. Del. June 27, 2005) 1711. PRETLOW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BD. OF SOC. SERVS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2885, 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32043 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2005) 1712. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14035 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 12, 2004) 1713. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6855 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2004) 1714. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14036 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2004) 1715. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG. v. Wyeth, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 9349 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2004) 1716. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6753 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2004) 1717. Kircher v. City of Ypsilanti, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 72449, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15658 (
E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2004) 1718. MAGRUM v. MEINKE, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7306, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 17813 (N.D.
Ohio May 25, 2004)
Page 167
1719. ESSO STD. OIL CO. v. COTTO, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 541968, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 23231 (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2004)
1720. COMCAST CABLE OF PLANO, INC. v. CITY OF PLANO, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 872107, 2003 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15573 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2003) 1721. BLANDO v. NEXTEL COMMUNS., INC., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 332756, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 17522 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 24, 2003) 1722. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 8266 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003) 1723. In re DPL INC. SECS. LITIG., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 355, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6836
(S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2003) 1724. NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. CO. v. REYNOLDS, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 21, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 7237 (S.D. W. Va. May 9, 2002) 1725. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. HOLMES COUNTY, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 862, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 6293 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 20, 2001) 1726. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODS. CORP., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 2310, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6260 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2001) 1727. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6625 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1728. In re: PROPULSID PRODS., LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6042 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1729. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6527 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1730. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6522 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2001) 1731. In re SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABS., INC. LAB. TEST BILLING PRACTICES LITIG. v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABS., INC., 1997 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1795, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7412 (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2000)
1732. Bartel v. Walsh, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 1161, 2008 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 3377 (Bankr. D.
Mass. Aug. 6, 2008) 1733. In re EARNED CAPITAL CORP., 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 2496, 2008 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 2138 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2008) PLEADINGS ( 11 Citing Pleadings )
1734. CHUNG v. JOHNSTON, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2615, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 9215 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009)
1735. Rio v. Abbott, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 509177, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 7394 (D.D.C.
May 4, 2009) 1736. Bankston v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2233, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 1531
Page 168
(D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2009) 1737. Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6488
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2008) 1738. Bankston v. IRS, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2233, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 10207 (D. Colo.
Oct. 15, 2008) 1739. Bolte v. Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 920573, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 4290 (W.D. Wash. May 27, 2008) 1740. Boivin v. Town of Addison, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 106923, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS
1668 (D. Vt. Mar. 21, 2008) 1741. Howard v. Ohio Supreme Court, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 514, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS
4722 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2007) 1742. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Pleadings 439967, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 2156 (M.D. Pa. June 8, 2007) 1743. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Pleadings 671B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 4709 (M.D. Pa. June 16, 2006) 1744. Augustin v. DanversBank, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 10368, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6801 (D. Mass. Mar. 1, 2006)