green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grizzle v. San Diego, County of
However, as set forth above, the evidence in the record 3 demonstrates Plaintiff could not have had a conversation with Lovelace in 2016, because 4 she was not assigned to SDCJ in 2016. 5 In order to satisfy the third element set forth in Castro, Plaintiff “must show that the 6 defendant’s actions were ‘objectively unreasonable,’ which requires a showing of ‘more 7 than negligence but less than subjective intent – something akin to reckless disregard.’” 8 Sandoval v. Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Castro, 833 9 F.3d at 1071). “[T]he defendant�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Harmlessness analysis is limited and will only be 9 used “when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the 10 procedure used or the substance of decision reached.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force, 378 11 F.3d at 1071 (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited "see"
Veterans Contracting Group v. United States
See Durable Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, No. 93-5090, 11 F.3d 1071 (Table) (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris Patriot Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. United States
P'ship v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (Fed.Cir.1994); C.A.C.I., Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1574-75 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also Durable Metals Prods., Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 472, 476-77 (1993) (”[T]he equitable jurisdiction of this court does not include the authority to award a contract as plaintiff requests.”), aff'd, 11 F.3d 1071 (Fed.Cir.1993) (unpublished table opinion). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Transatlantic Lines LLC v. United States
E.g., Dynacs Eng’g Co. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 614, 616 (2001) (a “party moving for an injunction bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted.”) (citing FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed.Cir.1993)); see also Durable Metals Prods., Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 472, 476 , aff'd, 11 F.3d 1071 (Fed.Cir.1993) (table).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CCL Service Corp. v. United States
See Scanwell Lab., 424 F.2d at 869 ; see also Durable Metals Prods., Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 472, 476-77 (“Moreover, the equitable jurisdiction of this court does not in-elude the authority to award a contract as plaintiff requests.”), aff'd, 11 F.3d 1071 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony O. Sims
v.
Merit Systems Protection Board
v.
Merit Systems Protection Board
93-3233.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Oct 19, 1993.
Unpublished
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Anthony O. SIMS, Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
No. 93-3233.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1993.
Before RICH and ARCHER, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Circuit Judge, Eighth Circuit:
Judgment
PER CURIAM.
1
AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir.R. 36.