green
Positive treatment
11.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Ex Rel. Schatz v. McCaughtry
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718, 719 (5th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Satterwhite v. Small
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718, 724 (5th Cir. 1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) -2- 1987); Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215 , 1216 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Budnick v. Barnstable Advocates
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. _____ ______________________ 1984) (similar), overruled on other grounds by, Victorian v. ______________________________ _________ Miller, 813 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1987).4 ______ ____________________ 4.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Budnick v. Barnstable Advocates
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1984) (similar), overruled on other grounds by, Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1987).4 4.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas P. Budnick v. Barnstable County Bar Advocates, Inc.
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1984) (similar), overruled on other grounds by, Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1987). 4 II.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dewey Baker v. Director, United States Parole Commission
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1984) (articulating a notice standard but declining to remand where the “position of the parties on appeal makes clear that a remand for service of process and further pleading would serve no purpose”), overruled on other grounds, Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gholston v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Montgomery
The MHA did not choose to cross-appeal from these rulings; nor did it raise the issue in its initial brief on appeal. 3 Because the failure to state a claim is not a jurisdictional question, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 , 239 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 2264 , 2274 n. 18, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 , 66 S.Ct. 773, 776 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), we need not address the issue sua sponte, particularly when there is no "plain error." 4 See Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1984) (unlike subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant generally must raise the issue of failure…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gholston v. Housing Authority
The MHA did not choose to cross-appeal from these rulings; nor did it raise the issue in its initial brief on appeal. 3 Because the failure to state a claim is not a jurisdictional question, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 , 239 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 2264 , 2274 n. 18, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 , 66 S.Ct. 773, 776 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), we need not address the issue sua sponte, particularly when there is no “plain error.” 4 See Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1984) (unlike subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant generally must raise the issue of fai…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harley v. Lyng
DPW cites Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 285-87 (5th Cir.1984), for the proposition that there is no private right of action to pursue claims that a state improperly administers its food stomp program.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andrew Lee Jackson v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
See, e.g., Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 285 (5th Cir.1984). 27 . — U.S. at-n. 3, 106 S.Ct. at 667, n. 3. 28 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Haskins v. Stanton
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 286 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daigle v. Opelousas Health Care, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U.S. 246, 249 , 71 S.Ct. 692, 694 , 95 L.Ed. 912, 917 (1951); Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 754 F.2d 1247 , 1248 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985) 2 Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 615-16 , 99 S.Ct. 1905, 1915 , 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 535 , 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577, 586 (1974); Examining Board of Engineers v. Flores De Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 582-83 , 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2272 , 49 L.Ed.2d 65, 73-74 (1976) 3 Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 285 (5th Cir.1984); Hart v. W…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daigle v. Opelousas Health Care, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 285 (5th Cir.1984); Hart v. Walker, 720 F.2d 1436 , 1439 n. 2 (5th Cir.1983); Mitchell v. Johnston, 701 F.2d 337, 344 (5th Cir.1983); Walsh v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 616 F.2d 152, 155-56 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124 , 101 S.Ct. 939 , 67 L.Ed.2d 109 (1980). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles A. George v. Aztec Rental Center, Incorporated
Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 286 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eunice Samuels, Lorraine Warren v. District of Columbia
See, e.g., Tyler v. Pasqua, 748 F.2d 283, 286-87 (5th Cir.1984) (looking to the “elaborate remedial measures” of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 204 et seq.)] Hawaii Dep’t of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 820 (9th Cir.1983) (noting the detailed administrative and judicial review provisions of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985); Powell v. Defore, 699 F.2d 1078 (11th Cir.1983) (same); Uniformed Firefighters Ass’n, Local 94 v. City of New York, 676 F.2d 20 , 22-23 & n. 4 (2nd Ci…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Billy William AKERS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Willis F. ARNETT, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
v.
Willis F. ARNETT, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
84-2050.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1984.
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, James P. Cooney, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants., Daniel K. Hedges, U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, C.J. (Neil) Calnan, Linda Cipriani, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., William H. Berger, Atty., Dept, of Labor, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Rubin, Tate, Hill.
Published
PER CURIAM:
AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth in the district court opinion filed December 16, 1983, Akers v. Trustees of Maritime Association, civil action no. H-82-3769, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 597 F.Supp. 557 (1983).
AFFIRMED.