green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
27.9 score
“a continuing violation applies when the 96 conduct is ongoing, rather than a single event”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Newell Recycl Co Inc v. EPA
a continuing violation applies when the 96 conduct is ongoing, rather than a single event
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation (Courtland III)
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997); Congaree Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Carolina Water Serv., Inc., 248 F. Supp. 3d 733, 745-46 (D.S.C. 2017); United States v. Lowry, 409 F. Supp. 2d 732, 736-38, 741 (W.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cox v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Nueces County Sheriff's Office/Jail
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: State of Texas
A. In its form most commonly deployed in our Circuit, “[t]he continuing violations doctrine is equitable in nature and extends the limitations period on otherwise time[-]barred claims.” 49 We have dealt with this version most frequently in the employment discrimination context, though we have recognized its potential applicability in other areas of law as well. 50 The 47 See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 853 F.3d 792, 801 (5th Cir. 2017) (considering application of continuing violations doctrine as inquiry into whether “equitable tolling is appropriate”). 48 See Interamericas Invs., Ltd…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. United States Department of Transportation
(2×)
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 384 (5th Cir. 1997).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 , 90 S.Ct. 858 , 25 L.Ed.2d 156 (1970); and Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gloria Harper
United States v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055, 1068-69 (7th Cir.2015); United States v. Thompson, supra, 111 F.3d at 376-80.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Akm LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Dept. of Labor
(2×)
See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264 , 271 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004) (rejecting Bamidele); Interamericas Investments v. Bd. of Governors, 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir.1997); Capital Tel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rutherford Oil Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heard v. Sheahan
See, e.g., M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools, 172 F.3d 797 , 804-05 (11th Cir.1999); Interamericas Investments, Ltd. v. Board of Gov ernors, 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir.1997); Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir.1996); Rapf v. Suffolk County, 755 F.2d 282, 292 (2d Cir.1985); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 821-22 (D.C.Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heard, Delbert v. Sheahan, Michael F.
See, e.g., M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools, 172 F.3d 797 , 804-05 (11th Cir. 1999); Interamericas Investments, Ltd. v. Board of Governors, 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997); Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1996); Rapf v. Suffolk County, 755 F.2d 282, 292 (2d Cir. 1985); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 821-22 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delbert Heard v. Michael F. Sheahan
See, e.g., M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools, 172 F.3d 797 , 804-05 (11th Cir. 1999); Interamericas Investments, Ltd. v. Board of Governors, 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1997); Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1996); Rapf v. Suffolk County, 755 F.2d 282, 292 (2d Cir. 1985); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 821-22 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pharaon, Ghaith R. v. FRS
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 384 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ghaith R. Pharaon v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 384 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pharaon, Ghaith R. v. FRS
Reserve Sys., 111 F.3d 376, 384 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. United States
(2×)
See Interamericas Invs., Ltd. v. Bd. of Gov'rs , 111 F.3d 376 , 382 (5th Cir. 1997) ("Here, the BHCA [Bank Holding Company Act] has more than per diem penalties; as emphasized above, it refers to 'continuing violations[.'] Furthermore, the BHCA uses the present tense in describing the offenses, making reasonable reading it as contemplating continuing violations.").
discussed
Cited "see"
Newell Recycling Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See Interamericas Investments, Ltd. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 111 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir.1997) (“A continuing violation applies when the conduct is ongoing, rather than a single event”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hamilton
See United States v. Coscarelli, 111 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peterson
See, e.g., United States v. Coscarelli, 105 F.3d 984, 990 (5th Cir.) (expenditures supported “promotion” money laundering charge when used to pay “the coconspirators, the telemarketers, and general operating expenses of the scheme”), vacated, 111 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.1997), reinstated, 149 F.3d 342 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1186 (5th Cir.1995) (“paying callers, purchasing leads, paying phone bills” promoted the illegal telemarketing activity and supported money laundering charge).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Larry L. Emerson
Wilson, 98 F.3d at 283 ; see also United States v. Coscarelli, 105 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 111 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.1997). 1 *565 The Government argues that the mail fraud and money laundering convictions should not be grouped as closely-related counts because the mail fraud and money laundering involved different transactions and different victims.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Craig Michael COSCARELLI, Also Known as John Coscarelli, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Craig Michael COSCARELLI, Also Known as John Coscarelli, Defendant-Appellee
96-20264.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1997.
Jeffery Alan Babcock, Paula Camille Of-fenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, Richard A. Friedman, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Ray Christopher Goldsmith, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Politz, King, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Parker, Dennis.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
(Opinion February 3, 1997, 5 Cir., 1997, 105 F.3d 984)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:A majority of judges in active service having determined, on the Court’s own motion, to rehear this case en bane,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc without argument. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.