green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
45.8 score
“should the party seeking costs be dissatisfied with the clerk's actions, or should the party against whom they are to be taxed object, on motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the court. such review by the court is a de novo determinat…”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Transonic Systems, Inc. v. Non-Invasive Medical Technologies Corp.
there is a presumption in favor of award of costs; we generally require a court to state its reasons if it decides to deny costs to a prevailing party.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Williams Securities Litigation-WCG Subclass
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
should the party seeking costs be dissatisfied with the clerk's actions, or should the party against whom they are to be taxed object, on motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the court. such review by the court is a de novo determinat…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Redbird Business Group, LLC v. Harrison
Litig.-WCG Subclass, 558 F.3d 1144, 1148 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Furr, 824 F.2d at 1550).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellis v. Grimes
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Litig.-WCG Subclass, 558 F.3d 1144, 1148 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Furr, 824 F.2d at 1550).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quarrie v. Wells
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Litig., 558 F.3d at 1148 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[C]aution and proper advocacy may make it incumbent on counsel to prepare for all contingencies which may arise during the course of litigation.” (quoting Furr, 824 F.2d at 1550)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trugreen Companies v. Mower Bros.
Id. at 1291-92 (footnote omitted) (citing Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987); Cleverock Energy Corp. v. Trepel, 609 F.2d 1358, 1363 (10th Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 446 U.S. 909 , 100 S.Ct. 1836 , 64 L.Ed.2d 261 (1980)); cf. Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 209 F.3d 1170, 1178-79 (10th Cir.2000) (concluding that costs must be awarded pursuant to mandatory Colorado cost-shifting statute to the extent they constitute "costs other than attorneys’ fees” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and are not preempted by a federal statute such as 28 U.S.C. § 1821 , and to t…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
McCormick v. Farrar
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 829 F.2d 957 , 960-61 (10th Cir.1987); Furr, 824 F.2d at 1543.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cline v. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
Bd., 928 F.2d 978 , 984 (10th Cir.1991) (gender discrimination claim); Furr, 824 F.2d at 1543 (age discrimination claim); Rails, 141 F.Supp.2d at 1300 (sexual harassment claim); Wallace v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 87 F.Supp.2d 1138 , 1146 n. 6 (D.Kan.2000) (age discrimination claim); Haug v. City of Topeka, Equip.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellison v. Sandia National Laboratories
Employee attempts to avoid the Act’s limitations period by invoking the “continuing violation doctrine.” Under that doctrine, a plaintiff may seek redress for incidents that occurred outside of the Act’s limitations period if at least one instance of the aggrieved conduct occurred within that period and the earlier incidents constitute a “continuing pattern of discrimination.” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. City of Moore
“We have stated that this definition authorizes recovery of costs with respect to all depositions reasonably necessary to the litigation of the case.” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
At most, such statements `provide circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent because they "require the trier of fact to infer that discrimination was a motivating cause of an employment decision." Wiltel, 81 F.3d at 1514 (citing Heim, 8 F.3d at 1547 ; Ramsey, 907 F.2d at 1008 ; Fm,', 824 F.2d at 1547, 1549).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Demarah v. Texaco Group, Inc.
The Tenth Circuit has recognized the continuing course of conduct doctrine, under which a claim of discrimination may include challenges to incidents which occurred outside the statutory time limitations of Title VII if the various acts constitute a “ ‘continuing pattern of discrimination.’ ” Martin v. Nannie & the Newborns, Inc., 3 F.3d 1410, 1415 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987)) The continuing violation doctrine is premised on the equitable notion that the statute of limitations should not begin to ran until a reasonable…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Colorado MRI, Ltd. v. Med-Alliance, Inc.
(2×)
Although this court has previously stated that " 'in reviewing the district court’s methodology in calculating damages, all we require is a reasonable basis for computation and reliance on the best evidence available in the circumstances,' " Lone Mountain Production Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 984 F.2d 1551, 1558 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1548 (10th Cir.1987)), in those cases we were actually referring to the factual inputs used in calculating damages rather than the underlying legal methodology, see Lone Mountain, 984 F.2d at 1558…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Colorado Mri, Ltd. v. Med-Alliance, Inc.
(2×)
In light of our disposition regarding waiver and/or amendment, we need not decide this matter 3 Although this court has previously stated that " 'in reviewing the district court's methodology in calculating damages, all we require is a reasonable basis for computation and reliance on the best evidence available in the circumstances,' " Lone Mountain Production Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 984 F.2d 1551, 1558 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1548 (10th Cir.1987)), in those cases we were actually referring to the factual inputs used in calcula…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cecil Bowman v. Robert Anderson, in His Official Capacity as the Chairman of the Oklahoma Tax Commission
Bowman must show that "he (1) was within the protected age group at the time of the failure to promote; (2) was qualified for promotion; (3) was not promoted; and (4) was passed over for an available promotion in favor of someone younger." Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowman v. Anderson
Bowman must show that “he (1) was within the protected age group at the time of the failure to promote; (2) was qualified for promotion; (3) was not promoted; and (4) was passed over for an available promotion in favor of someone younger.” Furr v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. , 824 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elza v. Koch Industries, Inc.
Koch next argues that Albright’s comments are not sufficient to constitute direct evidence of discrimination, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 , 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993); Cone v. Longmont United Hospital Association, 14 F.3d 526, 530 (10th Cir.1994); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir.1987); Baucom v. Amtech Sys.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Karsian v. Inter-Regional Financial Group, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Haug v. City of Topeka, Equipment Management Division
That doctrine provides that a discrimination claim may include challenges to conduct which occurred outside the applicable limitations period of Title VII if the various acts constitute a “continuing pattern of discrimination.” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp.
Id. at 961 (citing Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingram v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
Ingram, however, attempts to seek recovery for these alleged discriminatory acts by invoking the “continuing violation doctrine.” Under this doctrine, applicable to both Title VII and ADEA eases, a plaintiff is permitted to challenge discriminatory incidents that occurred outside the 300-day limitation period “if such incidents are sufficiently related [to events occurring within the time limitations period] and thereby constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination.” Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 832 , 115 S.Ct. 107 , 130 L.Ed.2d 55 (1994);…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Archuleta v. Colorado, Probation Department, 12th Judicial District
Ass’n, 14 F.3d 526, 531 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that isolated or stray comments, unrelated to the challenged personnel action, are insufficient to show discriminatory animus; the plaintiff must demonstrate that a nexus exists between the allegedly discriminatory statements and the employment actions); Snoey v. Advanced Forming Technology, Inc., 844 F.Supp. 1394, 1397 (D.Colo.1994) (same); Wiltel, Inc., 81 F.3d at 1514; Heim v. State of Utah, 8 F.3d 1541, 1546-47 (10th Cir.1993) (manager’s remark that “I hate having fucking women in the office” was not direct evidence of discriminatory…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Midwest Office Technology, Inc.
That doctrine provides that a discrimination claim may include challenges to conduct which occurred outside the applicable limitations period of Title VII if the various acts constitute a “continuing pattern of discrimination.” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Callicrate v. Farmland Industries, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987). 9 Whether materials are necessarily obtained for use in the case is question of fact to be determined by the district court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Callicrate v. Farmland Industries, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. State of Oklahoma
Furr v. AT&T -10- Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir. 1987) (holding that evidence of discriminatory statements from which determining cause of employment decision might be inferred is not direct evidence of causation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanne Roberts v. The State of Oklahoma, on Behalf of the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges, a Body Corporate University of Central Oklahoma
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (holding that evidence of discriminatory statements from which determining cause of employment decision might be inferred is not direct evidence of causation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sloan v. Boeing Company
In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote under the ADEA, a “plaintiff must show that he (1) was within the protected age group at the time of the failure to promote; (2) was qualified for promotion; (3) was not promoted; and (4) was passed over for an available promotion in favor of someone younger.” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir. 1987). -7- It is undisputed that Sloan was over 50 years of age at the time of Booker’s and Guhr’s promotions, well within the protected age group; he was not promoted; and Booker and Guh…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William E. Sloan v. The Boeing Company
Therefore, we must determine whether Sloan established a prima facie case on any one of his claims and, if so, whether he produced sufficient evidence to support a finding that Boeing's reasons for not promoting him were pretextual. 21 In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote under the ADEA, a "plaintiff must show that he (1) was within the protected age group at the time of the failure to promote; (2) was qualified for promotion; (3) was not promoted; and (4) was passed over for an available promotion in favor of someone younger." Furr v. AT & T Technologi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deasy v. United States
Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1548 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlson v. WPLG/TV-10, POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
See e.g., Carden v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 850 F.2d 996, 1000 (3d Cir.1988); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir.1987); Diaz v. AT & T, 752 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir.1985); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1012-13 (1st Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beck's Furniture v. Haworth, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1545 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taken v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission
See id. (quoting Heim v. State of Utah, 8 F.3d 1541, 1546-47 (10th Cir.1993); Ramsey v. City of Denver, 907 F.2d 1004 , 1008 (10th Cir.1990); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1547 (10th Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kotas v. Waterman Broadcasting
Id. at 583, n. 14 ; citing Carden v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 850 F.2d 996, 1000 (3d Cir.1988); Furr v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir.1987); Diaz v. AT & T, 752 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir.1985); Douglas v. Anderson, 656 F.2d 528, 533 (9th Cir.1981); Schwager v. Sun Oil Co., 591 F.2d 58 (10th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wiltel, Inc.
(2×)
Heim, 8 F.3d at 1546-47 (manager's remark that "I hate having fucking women in the office" was not direct evidence of discriminatory intent); Ramsey, 907 F.2d at 1008 (director's "feelings about women being better suited to some jobs than others" was not direct evidence of discriminatory intent); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1547, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (managers' statements that a plaintiff could not be promoted because "he was too damned old," and that other plaintiffs were too old to learn new technologies necessary to promotion and too old to be in supervisory or managem…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wiltel, Inc.
(2×)
Heim, 8 F.3d at 1546-47 (manager’s remark that “I hate having fucking women in the office” was not direct evidence of discriminatory intent); Ramsey, 907 F.2d at 1008 (director’s “feelings about women being better suited to some jobs than others” was not direct evidence of discriminatory intent); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1547, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (managers’ statements that a plaintiff could not be promoted because “he was too damned old,” and that other plaintiffs were too old to learn new technologies necessary to promotion and too old to be in supe…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Puritan-Bennett Corp.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987); Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 560 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ziegler v. K-Mart Corporation
Thereafter, and in the presence of Ms. Faulkner, Halbkat would make comments accusing Ms. Renner of talking to her "nigger" friend again, and being a "nigger lover." Sandra Watkins, a previous employee of K-Mart, testified that on one occasion in the company cafeteria she noted that Janet Renner was upset after Halbkat had gone through the cafeteria line; and, upon inquiry, Janet Renner explained that Mr. Halbkat had accused her of being a "nigger lover" again. 25 Id. at 5-6 p 17, Appellant's App. at 43-44 (footnote omitted). 26 We, and other courts, have recognized the "continuing course of c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(2×)
Corp., 619 F.2d 738 , 743 (8th Cir.1980); Smith v. Office of Economic Opportunity, 538 F.2d 226, 228-29 (8th Cir.1976); Clark v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, 885 F.Supp. 694 , 706 *1414 (E.D.Pa.1995) (quoting Martin v. Nannie and the Newborns, 3 F.3d 1410, 1415 (10th Cir.1993), aff'd, 54 F.3d 788 (10th Cir.1995), in turn, quoting Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir. 1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bendis v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613, 621 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clark v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
However, “a claim of discrimination may include challenges to incidents which occurred outside the statutory time limitations of Title VII if the various acts constitute a ‘continuing pattern of discrimination.’ ” Martin v. Nannie and the Newborns, 3 F.3d 1410, 1415 (10th Cir.1993), quoting Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd David Slusher v. Mary Gabler, Van Whisman, Bill Fitzgerald, City of Lakewood
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffith v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center
Costs of Videotaping Depositions Section 1920(2) authorizes taxation of “[flees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case.” This includes the costs of deposition transcripts that are “ ‘reasonably necessary to the litigation.’ ” Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 560 (10th Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roy L. Jackson v. Integra Inc., Doing Business as Residence Inn Marriott Corp., a Hotel and Restaurant Company Brock Suite Hotels, Inc.
Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Price v. Public Service Co. of Colorado
Martin, 3 F.3d at 1415 (citation omitted); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987), reh’g. denied, 842 F.2d 253 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunt v. Bennett
Instead, Hunt invokes the continuing violation doctrine, an equitable principle that we have applied in the context of Title VII claims, to link three alleged wrongful acts by Bennett from August 1990 to September 1991 as a single discriminatory enterprise. 3 See, e.g., Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunt v. Bennett
Instead, Hunt invokes the continuing violation doctrine, an equitable principle that we have applied in the context of Title VII claims, to link three alleged wrongful acts by Bennett from August 1990 to September 1991 as a single discriminatory enterprise. 3 See, e.g., Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1543 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
62 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 415, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,472 Darnell Hooks v. Diamond Crystal Specialty Foods, Inc., a Michigan Corporation Doing Business in the State of Oklahoma
In his Response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Hooks cites Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1544 (10th Cir.1987), contending that Diamond's discriminatory conduct was ongoing and continuing, thereby falling within the statutory limit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Leroy Rush A/K/A James Johnson
v.
Leroy Rush A/K/A James Johnson
86-1811.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 24, 1987.
824 F.2d 1537
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Leroy RUSH a/k/a James Johnson, Appellant.
No. 86-1811EM.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
July 24, 1987.
[*~1537]1
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
ORDER
[*~1550]2
On the Court's own motion this case is hereby referred to the Court en banc for argument and submission. This case is consolidated with U.S. v. Mark Anthony Cloyd, 819 F.2d 836 (8th Cir.1987), for the purpose of submission on the issue of sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1202(a). The Clerk of this Court shall set both cases for argument on Monday, September 14, 1987, in St. Louis, Missouri.