green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
64.2 score
“tyler does not contest the district court's ruling that intentional damages must be pleaded and proved in order to recover compensatory damages for mental and emotional distress under the ada.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Li v. Waveland Ventures LLC
the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hans v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty Comm'rs
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
tyler does not contest the district court's ruling that intentional damages must be pleaded and proved in order to recover compensatory damages for mental and emotional distress under the ada.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Theriault v. Dept. of Safety
in enacting the ada, congress recognized that discrimination against the disabled is often the product of indifference rather than animosity.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burke v. Regalado
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
because the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order, our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Latawnya Denise Cowan v. KVC Behavioral Healthcare, Inc.
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (Jenkins, J., dissenting) (explaining legislative history demonstrating that “under the public accommodations provisions of title III, the [ADA] expressly limits relief to equitable remedies” but “title II of the act, covering public services, contains no such limitation” (quotation cleaned up)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moral v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Haaland
This court has discretion to consider arguments raised solely in an amicus brief, but it should do so only “in exceptional circumstances.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dabbs v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 , 897 n.15 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greg Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Group, Inc
Other circuits have held that courts of appeals “clear[ly]” have “the discretion to reach arguments raised only in an amicus curiae brief.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Kengerski v. Orlando Harper
The District Court considered and discussed the theory at length in its opinion, Kengerski’s opening brief raised the general substance, if not the form, of the issue by emphasizing the comments McCall made to him based on his association with his biracial grand-niece, and his reply brief “raise[d] the issue by reference to the amicus brief.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997); see Kengerski Reply Br. at 18.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marcantel v. Michael & Sonja Saltman Family
We settled on that standard in part “[b]ecause the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order.” Id. (quoting Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keller v. Alpine School District
In Title II cases, the Tenth Circuit has used the terms interchangeably, referring to an individual's request for a “modification” under Title II as a request for “accommodation.” See, e.g., Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1407 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. EPA
See Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 824 F.3d 1207, 1216 (10th Cir. 2016) (“An amicus is not a party.”); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that we will consider issues newly advanced by an amicus only in a “truly . . . exceptional case”). 16 The Sierra Club contends that the intervenors cannot raise new issues.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mowrey v. Jacobsen
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (the public accommodations provisions of Title III “expressly limits relief to equitable remedies”) (citing 35 Cong.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Azim v. Tortoise Capital Advisors
(2×)
“Because the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order, our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eaglemed LLC v. Cox
Plaintiffs argue that we should not consider these arguments because they were not raised in Defendants’ opening brief and we generally will not “reach out to .decide issues advanced not by'the parties but instead by amicus.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Needham
(2×)
E.g., Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamra Acorn, Rebecca Shwen, and Federer Holding Company, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. Lori Moncecchi and Dino Moncecchi
Likewise, judgments that completely resolve the claims and grant the relief sought have been held to be final even where further work remains to be done. 15B Wright, supra, § 3915.2 n.34. [¶31] In Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir. 1997), the City argued that the lower court’s judgment was not appealable because it retained jurisdiction over the parties until they complied with the terms of the injunction it had ordered.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamra Acorn, Rebecca Shwen, and Federer Holding Company, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. Lori Moncecchi and Dino Moncecchi
Likewise, judgments that completely resolve the clairqs and grant the relief sought have been held to be final even where further work remains to be done. 15B Wright, supra, § 3915.2 n.34. [¶31] In Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir. 1997), the City argued that the lower court’s judgment was not appealable because it retained jurisdiction over the parties until they complied with the terms of the injunction it had ordered.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department
LEXIS 155676 , at *22 (D.N.M. 2012)(Browning, J.)(citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1405 (10th Cir. 1997)(Jenkins, J., dissenting); Young v. City of Claremore, Okla., 411 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1314 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ackerman
App. P. 28; In re McGough, 737 F.3d 1268 , 1277 n.8 (10th Cir. 2013); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403-04 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Salazar
See Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 , 826 n. 6 (8th Cir.2009) (citing cases) ("[W]e decline to consider this issue because it was raised to this court by the amici and not by the parties.”); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (citing cases) ("We choose not to address this argument because it was not raised by a party to this appeal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Blackburn
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1416 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Genova v. Banner Health
Though we have the discretion to address an argument developed only by an amicus rather than a party, we will typically exercise that discretion only when (1) a party has done something to incorporate the argument “by reference” in its own brief, or (2) “the issue involves a jurisdictional question or touches upon an issue of federalism or comity that could be considered sua sponte.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997); see also Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Yazzie, 909 F.2d 1387, 1422 (10th Cir. 1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ulibarri v. City & County of Denver
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403-4 (10th Cir. 1997). a.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. Porter
Id. at 568 . “ ‘[A]cts and omissions which have a disparate impact on disabled persons in general [are] not specific acts of intentional discrimination against [the plaintiff] in particular.’” Id. (quoting Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scozzari v. City of Clare
The court emphasized that “acts and omissions which have a disparate impact on disabled persons in general [are] not specific acts of intentional discrimination against [the plaintiff] in particular.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D'Souza-Kamath v. Cloud County Health Center, Inc.
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (“Because the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order, our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion.”); see also Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1219 (10th Cir.2000) (“This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s exclusion of evidence or issues from trial on the basis of a properly-drawn, detailed pretrial order.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tucker v. State of TN
Page 6 discrimination against [the plaintiff] in particular.’”) (citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tucker v. Tennessee
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
This general allegation is insufficient to establish a claim under the ADA in the Sixth Circuit: Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 568 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Trans Pacific Oil Corp.
“Because the district court is in the best position to interpret its' pretrial order, our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Department
In Title II cases, this Court has used the terms interchangeably, referring to an individual’s request for a "modification” under Title II as a request for "accommodation.” See, e.g., Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1407 (10th Cir.1997). 9 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klesch & Co. v. Liberty Media Corp.
See Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1219 (10th Cir.2000) (“This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s exclusion of evidence or issues from trial on the basis of a properly-drawn, detailed pretrial order.”); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (“[T]he *834 district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. City of Claremore, Okla.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Nor has this court offered any specific guidance to ‘sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination,’ other than to suggest that a plaintiff must show the challenged conduct was moti *1315 vated by discriminatory animus.” See Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1405 (10th Cir.1997) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holt v. Continental Casualty Co.
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Hullman v. Bd. of Trustees, 950 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir.1991) (internal citation omitted)). 44 ., Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp., 100 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir.1996) (explaining that a general reference to ERISA violations in the pretrial order is insufficient to preserve procedural issues for appeal when not raised in the district court); see, e.g., Devers, 35 F.Supp.2d at 1288 n. 10 ("As an initial matter, plaintiff failed to assert in the pretrial order any claim for civil penalties stemming from defendant's untime…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly Dillery, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. City of Sandusky, Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees. Kelly Dillery v. City of Sandusky
(2×)
Thus, Dillery cannot demonstrate that Sandusky intentionally discriminated against her specifically by failing to undertake these actions. “[A]cts and omissions which have a disparate impact on disabled persons in general [are] not specific acts of intentional discrimination against [the plaintiff] in particular.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dillery v. Sandusky
Thus, Dillery cannot demonstrate that Sandusky intentionally discriminated against her specifically by failing to undertake these actions. “[A]cts and omissions which have a disparate impact on disabled persons in general [are] not specific acts of intentional discrimination against [the plaintiff] in particular.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Youren v. Tintic School District
(2×)
The resulting pretrial order “measures the dimensions of the lawsuit, both in the trial court and on appeal.” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance
R.Civ.P. 16(e); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mercer v. Duke University
The general presumption does not apply in Title VII cases because “Title VII did not create a ‘general right to sue’ ... but instead specified a set of ‘circumscribed remedies.’ ” Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1411 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 , 285-86 n. 38, 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 1508 n. 38, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt
See, e.g., Vaughns v. Board of Education, 758 F.2d 983, 989 (4th Cir.1985); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997); Hastert v. Illinois State Bd. of Election Commissioners, 28 F.3d 1430 , 1438 (7th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollister v. University of North Dakota (In Re Hollister)
Inasmuch as the pretrial order “supersedes the pleadings and controls the subsequent course of litigation,” see Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997), the court deems the purported counterclaim to be waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lorrie Ann Horner, by and Through Her Father Nfr Haskel Horner Jennifer Baker, by and Through Her Father Nfr Douglas Baker Juliana Brown, by and Through Her Father Nfr Michael Brown Angella Chaffin, by and Through Her Father Nfr Dale Chaffin Tracy Dotson, by and Through Her Father Nfr Sherman Dotson Jacqueline Elston, by and Through Her Father Joseph Elston Amy Hacker, by and Through Her Father Nfr Chris Hacker Elizabeth Suzanne Hartlage, an Adult Kelly Johnson, by and Through Her Father Nfr Charles Johnson Mary Christine Whitelock, an Adult, Leslie Burgett, by and Through Her Father Nfr Billy Burgett Barrie Wagers, by and Through Her Father Nfr Lyde Wagers v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association Kentucky State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education
Tex. 1983) (recognizing that Justice White's opinion on damages was not the opinion of the Court); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1414 (10th Cir. 1997) (Jenkins, J., dissenting). 92 My position that Justice White's opinion must be kept within its proper bounds is further supported by subsequent SupremeCourt decisions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Horner Ex Rel. Horner v. Kentucky High School Athletic Ass'n
(2×)
Tex. 1983) (recognizing that Justice White’s opinion on for a monetary award.” Justice White’s opinion damages was not the opinion of the Court); Tyler v. City of announcing the Court’s judgment in Guardians Assn. v Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1414 (10th Cir. 1997) (Jenkins, J., Civil Serv.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edwards & Associates, Inc. v. Black & Veatch, L.L.P.
R.Civ.P. 16(e); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Hullman v. Board of Trustees, 950 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davoll v. Webb
(2×)
Schs., 34 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.1994) (same), Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1407 (10th Cir.1997) (Jenkins, J., dissenting) (“[R]eeent cases ... suggest that in the specific context of Title II of the ADA, the compensatory damages remedy may not depend on proof of intentional discrimination.”), and Niece v. Fitzner, 922 F.Supp. 1208 , 1219 & n. 9 (E.D.Mich.1996) (noting, without deciding, that some cases have held a showing of intent is required to recover compensatory damages under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act), with Wood v. President and Trustees of Spring Hill College,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Cashland, Inc.
Citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997), she further argues that because the court’s decision to exclude was based upon its interpretation of the pretrial order, that interpretation is also subject to abuse of discretion review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Flexman
The Bartlett court then reasoned that "[i]n the context of the Rehabilitation Act, intentional discrimination against the disabled does not require personal animosity or ill will.” Id., citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1406 (10th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Powers v. MJB Acquisition Corp.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1997). 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rolland v. Cellucci
See L.C. by Zimring, 138 F.3d at 902 ; Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1407 (10th Cir.1997); Martin, 840 F.Supp. at 1191-92 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John RAMBO, Claimant-Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Metropolitan Stevedore Company, Respondents
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Metropolitan Stevedore Company, Respondents
92-70783.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 4, 1997.
In accordance with the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1953, 138 L.Ed.2d 327 (1997), vacating in part and remanding our prior decision published at 81 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1996), this case is REMANDED to the Benefits Review Board of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.