green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
35.9 score
“he plaintiff's political support of opponent may have been a factor in her termination.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "but see"
Ferguson v. Webster
But see Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394-95 (10th Cir.1990) (superseded by rule and overruled on other grounds).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office
(14×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he plaintiff's political support of opponent may have been a factor in her termination.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klaus v. Village of Tijeras
Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office, 49 F.Supp.3d 920, 984 (D.N.M. 2014) (citing Dickeson v. Quarberg, 844 F.2d 1435, 1445 (10th Cir. 1988) and Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1393 (10th Cir. 1990)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Turlington v. Connor
Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir. 1990), superseded on other grounds as recognized in Dodger’s Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson Cty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office
The Court, moreover, concluded that, regardless whether the Individual Defendants can point to a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to terminate Walton’s position, Walton “produced sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the Defendants’ proffered reasons are pretextual.” QI MO at 109 (citing Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1393-94 (10th Cir. 1990)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cleveland v. Martin
See Eastwood v. Dep’t of Corr. of Okla., 846 F.2d 627 , 631-32 (10th Cir.1988); 1 see also Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Service
Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 , 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d at 441 , Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1393-94 (10th Cir.1990), and Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 949 (10th Cir.1990), circumstantial evidence which demonstrates pretext allow a factfinder to infer unconstitutional intent in the context of a First Amendment claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyer v. Rabon
As pointed out in Workman , although Appellants ask us to determine this issue, and this court has honored such a request in at least one other case, see Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990), we believe the better practice is to remand such a determination to the district court, see Workman, 958 F.2d at 336-37 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation. Sheldon Danuff, Skat Capital Lp and Joel D. Zychick
Co. v. Domino’s Pizza, 144 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir.1998) (“[U]nder Rule 58, a district court is not even required to file two separate documents.”); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that a summary judgment order met the separate-document requirement and that the rule thus did “not require that two documents be used instead of one”), superseded by rule on other grounds; United States v. Perez, 736 F.2d 236, 238 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (holding that a district court order did not violate separate-document requirement of Rule 58, as “[t]he mere fac…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Cendant Corp
Co. v. Domino’s Pizza, 144 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[U]nder Rule 58, a district court is 5 Schimmels applied Bankruptcy Rule 9021, which contains a separate-document rule “identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.” 85 F.3d at 420 . 13 not even required to file two separate documents.”); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that a summary judgment order met the separate-document requirement and that the rule thus did “not require that two documents be used instead of one”), superseded by rule on other grounds; United States v. Perez, 73…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kidd v. District of Columbia
(2×)
Judge Robinson clearly did not qualify his view that a judgment could recite the adoption of a magistrate’s report without becoming a memorandum and order, and neither did the Tenth Circuit in Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990), where it explicitly accepted under Rule 58 a document that granted summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montez v. Romer
Creighton, 483 U.S. at 645 , 107 S.Ct. at 3042 (noting that Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815-20 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736-39 , shifted the qualified immunity inquiry from subjective malice to an “objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of the official action”); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990) (“The key to the inquiry is the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.”); see also Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 , 1351 n. 9 (4th Cir.1995) (finding defendants were entitle…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.
I.Qualified Immunity of Individual Overland Park Defendants 10 Officer Stovall, the unnamed desk clerk of OPPD, Chief Douglass, and Mayor Eilert (the “Individual Overland Park Defendants”) move to dismiss plaintiffs claims because of qualified immunity. 11 Government officials performing administrative or executive functions have qualified immunity from suit under civil rights statutes if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mason v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir.1990); Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 896, 899 (10th Cir.1985); LaRou v. Ridlon, 98 F.3d 659, 661 (1st Cir.1996). 5 27 Having reviewed the record, we hold that when all reasonable inferences are drawn in Mason's favor, the jury could reasonably infer that political patronage was a motivating factor in Mason's dismissal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mason v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir.1990); Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 896, 899 (10th Cir.1985); LaRou v. Ridlon, 98 F.3d 659, 661 (1st Cir.1996). 5 Having reviewed the record, we hold that when all reasonable inferences are drawn in Mason’s favor, the jury could reasonably infer that political patronage was a motivating factor in Mason’s dismissal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemons v. Lewis
“The key to this inquiry is the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollingsworth v. Hill
Assistant District Attorney Driesel is an officer of the State, Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990), and is not vested with authority over the conduct of McCurtain County sheriff's deputies or the service and execution of protective orders issued by Oklahoma courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollingsworth v. Hill
Assistant District Attorney Driesel is an officer of the State, Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990), and is not vested with authority over the conduct of McCurtain County sheriffs deputies or the service and execution of protective orders issued by Oklahoma courts.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lester Eugene Fowler
Even if this observation was not a ruling, we may still decide the issue because "all of the pertinent facts are in the record before us." See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fowler
Even if this observation was not a ruling, we may still decide the issue because 15 “all of the pertinent facts are in the record before us.” See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. San Miguel County
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 2347 , 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dees v. Vendel
“The key to this inquiry is the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City Of Chanute, Kansue, v. Williams Natural Gas Company
Project v. Unsecured Creditors Comm., 948 F.2d 678 , 681-82 (10th Cir.1991); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that "the failure to specifically designate a party somewhere in the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional bar to that party's appeal") (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dodger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners
Court for Dist. of Colo., 934 F.2d 244 , 247-48 (10th Cir.1991) (“et al.” in caption and notice that contained language “all the Defendants of record herein” did not provide clear point of reference for reviewing court to identify appellants in bankruptcy case); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) (“et al.” designation together with “plaintiffs hereby appeal” not sufficient to provide jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs under Rule 3(e) and Torres).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Chanute v. Williams Natural Gas Co.
Project v. Unsecured Creditors Comm., 948 F.2d 678 , 681-82 (10th Cir.1991); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that “the failure to specifically designate a party somewhere in the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional bar to that party’s appeal”) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dodger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board Of County Commissioners
Court for Dist. of Colo., 934 F.2d 244 , 247-48 (10th Cir.1991) ("et al." in caption and notice that contained language "all the Defendants of record herein" did not provide clear point of reference for reviewing court to identify appellants in bankruptcy case); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) ("et al." designation together with "plaintiffs hereby appeal" not sufficient to provide jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs under Rule 3(c) and Torres).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter Kadelski v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services
See Mason v. Groose, 942 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 891 , 116 L.Ed.2d 794 (1992) (order adopting Magistrate’s report and recommendation satisfies Rule 58); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990) (same); Alman v. Taunton Sportswear Mfg.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kadelski v. Sullivan
See Mason v. Groose, 942 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 891 (1992) (order adopting Magistrate's report and recommendation satisfies Rule 58); Laidley v. McClain, 7 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990) (same); Alman v. Taunton Sportswear Mfg.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lia Yang v. Donna E. Shalala, Hhs, Secretary
See Mason v. Groose, 942 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir.1991) (finding that an “order” which simply adopts a magistrate’s report and recommendation by reference is a separate document for Rule 58 purposes), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 891 , 116 L.Ed.2d 794 (1992); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386,1390 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Perez, 736 F.2d 236,238 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Neal v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.
Much like the standard for deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), “[f]or a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment, there must be sufficient evidence from which a jury could find for the plaintiff.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)); See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. Gunter
Duncan has the burden of proving "a substantial correspondence between the conduct in question and prior law allegedly establishing that the defendant's actions were clearly prohibited." Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990); accord Jantz v. Muci, 976 F.2d 623, 627 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2445 , 124 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. Gunter
Duncan has the burden of proving “a substantial correspondence between the conduct in question and prior law allegedly establishing that the defendant’s actions were clearly prohibited.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990); accord Jantz v. Muci 976 F.2d 623, 627 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2445 , 124 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mallas v. United States
See Colle v. Brazos County, 981 F.2d 237 , 240-42 (5th Cir.1993) (use of “et al.” and plural “Plaintiffs” did not satisfy Fed.R.App.P. 3(c)); Adkins v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 968 F.2d 1317, 1318-19 (D.C.Cir.1992) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 968 , 122 L.Ed.2d 123 (1993); Pontarelli v. Stone, 930 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.1991) (same); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (10th Cir.1990) (same); Pride v. Venango River Corp., 916 F.2d 1250, 1251-53 (7th Cir.1990) (same, even where collateral document listed all plaintiffs), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1696 , 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca4 1993
See Colle v. Brazos County, 981 F.2d 237 , 240-42 (5th Cir.1993) (use of "et al." and plural "Plaintiffs" did not satisfy Fed.R.App.P. 3(c)); Adkins v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 968 F.2d 1317, 1318-19 (D.C.Cir.1992) (same), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 968 , 122 L.Ed.2d 123 (1993); Pontarelli v. Stone, 930 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.1991) (same); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (10th Cir.1990) (same); Pride v. Venango River Corp., 916 F.2d 1250, 1251-53 (7th Cir.1990) (same, even where collateral document listed all plaintiffs), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1696 , 114…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burgess v. West
“The key to this inquiry is the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patricia J. Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc.
Kline v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 522, 523-24 (10th Cir.1991) (citing Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990)). ' The December 6 order, simply styled “order”, was entered while the parties’ motion for entry of final judgment was pending and did not address all the deficiencies raised in that motion.' In contrast, the January 25 entry, styled “CLERK’S ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT”, specifically *1466 addressed all the issues the parties then considered unresolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steinberg v. Allen
Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation ** This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3 1 We also note that the disposition effected by the appealed order was not recorded on a separate document in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, and the order does not itself meet the requirements of the rule, compare Clough v. Rush, 959…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Battle v. Anderson
Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d 651 , 654 (10th Cir.1990) ("et al." designation in conjunction with phrase "defendants above named hereby appeal" does not satisfy Rule 3(c)); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) (use of "et al." together with "plaintiffs hereby appeal" is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs under Rule 3(c)). 3 These cases are dispositive of the authority Anderson and his successor cite to us on appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Battle v. Anderson
Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d 651 , 654 (10th Cir.1990) (“et al.” designation in conjunction with phrase “defendants above named hereby appeal” does not satisfy Rule 3(c)); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990) (use of “et al.” together with “plaintiffs hereby appeal” is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs under Rule 3(c)). 3 These cases are dispositive of the authority Anderson and his successor cite to us on appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adkins v. Safeway Stores
Use of the generic term "plaintiffs" does not add specificity because, contrary to the drivers' suggestion, that term does not necessarily mean "all plaintiffs." We conclude, as have five of the six other circuits to pass upon the question, that use of the terms "et al." and "plaintiffs" does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 3(c), as interpreted in Torres, that each and every party appealing be either "named or otherwise designated ... in the notice of appeal." See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990); Minority Employees of Tenn. Dep't of Employment Sec., Inc. v. Tennesse…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adkins v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Use of the generic term “plaintiffs” does not add specificity because, contrary to the drivers’ suggestion, that term does not necessarily mean “all plaintiffs.” We conclude, as have five of the six other circuits to pass upon the question, that use of the terms “et al.” and “plaintiffs” does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 3(c), as interpreted in Torres , that each and every party appealing be either “named or otherwise designated ... in the notice of appeal.” See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990); Minority Employees of Tenn. Dep’t of Employm…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Board of Appeals of Rockport v. DeCarolis
Cf. Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo Ruiz, 877 F.2d 1114 , *352 1115-1116 (1st Cir. 1989); Cruz v. Melendez, 902 F.2d 232, 235-236 (3d Cir. 1990); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1388-1390 (10th Cir. 1990); Pride v. Venango River Corp., 916 F.2d 1250, 1251-1253 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Schneider, 926 F.2d 111, 778-779 (8th Cir. 1991); Michigan Carpenters Council Health & Welfare Fund v. C.J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Workman v. Jordan
While there is authority for the parties’ request, see Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990) (court addressed issue of qualified immunity on the merits although dis trict court declined to rule on it where appellees raised issue on appeal and all of the pertinent facts were in the record before the court), as a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca10 1992
While there is authority for the parties' request, see Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990) (court addressed issue of qualified immunity on the merits although district court declined to rule on it where appellees raised issue on appeal and all of the pertinent facts were in the record before the court), as a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Bendis, Robert H. Mann, Jr., John Pappajohn and W. Terrence Schreier v. Federal Insurance Company
Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.W. Walter v. International Association Of Machinists Pension Fund
Similarly, we held in Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990), that a statement that "plaintiffs hereby appeal" is insufficient to list the appellants. 8 In the instant case, the eighteen putative appellants were named on the notice of appeals as follows: "J.W.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter v. International Ass'n of Machinists Pension Fund
Similarly, we held in Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1990), that a statement that “plaintiffs hereby appeal” is insufficient to list the appellants.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. Sanchez
There are material issues of fact vigorously disputed and documented by competent pretrial evidence to support both parties’ contentions. “[W]hen all inferences from the evidence are drawn in the plaintiff[s’] favor, plaintiff[s have] raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [their] exercise of protected First Amendment activity was a substantial or motivating factor in her termination.” Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1392 (10th Cir.1990) (citing Mt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Unioil
Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314, 317 , 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2407, 2409 , 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988); Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1388-90 (10th Cir.1990). 22 The notice of appeal filed in this case identifies the appellants as "Appellant Partnerships, Dalton Development Project No. 1 et al. and other partnerships." (R.Vol.
United States
v.
Ted H. Kimball
v.
Ted H. Kimball
87-1392.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 21, 1990.
Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ted H. KIMBALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-1392.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 21, 1990.
Prior report: 9th Cir., 896 F.2d 1218.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, BROWNING, WALLACE, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN, THOMPSON, O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, TROTT, FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.