green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
13.9 score
“the proposition that a decision of the fifth circuit court of appeals incorrectly interprets an opinion by the supreme court of the united states must be addressed to the fifth circuit, the decisions of which are binding on this court.”
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kidd v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
hen an employee's position has been eliminated and the job duties reassigned to existing employees, that employee has not been replaced.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Dettmering
the proposition that a decision of the fifth circuit court of appeals incorrectly interprets an opinion by the supreme court of the united states must be addressed to the fifth circuit, the decisions of which are binding on this court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Divon Daniel Wray v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al.
“Information provided by a consumer reporting Section 168le(b) imposes a duty on CRAs to “assure agency is misleading where it is ‘open to an interpretation maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning that is directly contradictory to the true information.’ ” Jd. the individual about whom the report relates.”15 U.S.C. § (quoting Wagner v. TRW, Inc., 139 F.3d 898, 898 (5th Cir. 1681e(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaunfield v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
This result is consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s finding that the "FCRA is to be liberally construed in favor of the consumer." See Wagner v. TRW, Inc., 139 F.3d 898, 898 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (citation omitted). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. Hutson
Dist., 567 F. App’x 293, 294 (5th Cir. 2014)); see Rexses v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 401 F. App’x 866, 868 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[A] terminated employee has not been ‘replaced’ when his position is eliminated and his former duties are distributed among other co-workers.” (citing Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898, *3 (5th Cir. 1998)); see also Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added), cited with approval in Dulin, 139 F.3d at *3 (“A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiff’s duti…
discussed
Cited "see"
Rebecca Musser v. Paul Quinn College
See Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“[A]pplicable case law holds that when an employee’s position has been eliminated and the job duties reassigned to existing employees, that employee has not been replaced.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rebecca Musser v. Paul Quinn College
See Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“[A]pplicable case law holds that when an employee’s position has been eliminated and the job duties reassigned to existing employees, that employee has not been replaced.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rebecca Musser v. Paul Quinn College
See Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“[A]pplicable case law holds that when an employee’s position has been eliminated and the job duties reassigned to existing employees, that employee has not been replaced.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Philip Morris Inc.
See Hulsey v. American Brands, Inc., 1997 WL 271755 (S.D.Tex.1997), aff 'd 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. March 2, 1998) (unpublished), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 868 , 119 S.Ct. 162 , 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998); Oglesby v. American Brands, Inc., 1997 WL 881214 (S.D.Tex.1997), aff'd, 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.1998) (unpublished), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 868 , 119 S.Ct. 161 , 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998); Whirley v. American Brands, Inc., 1997 WL 881215 (S.D.Tex.1997), aff 'd, 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.1998) (unpublished), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 868 , 119 S.Ct. 162 , 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hashimoto
See United States v. Hashimoto, 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott Hashimoto
See United States v. Hashimoto, 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.1998)(unpublished).
cited
Cited "see"
Sanchez v. Liggett & Myers, Inc.
See Hulsey v. American Brands, Inc., No. 97-40694, 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.1998), aff'g No. C-97-003, 1997 WL 271755 (S.D.Tex.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Long v. City of Llano
Dkt. 16, at 7. “[A] terminated employee has not been ‘replaced’ when his position is eliminated and his former duties are distributed among other co-workers.” Rexses v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 401 F. App’x 866, 868 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie 1 The City’s motion argues that Long “cannot establish elements (3) or (4),” but the City only makes argument with respect to the fourth element.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. City of Central
Guillot, 59 F.4th at 751 . 33 United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992); Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215 , 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001); Banks v. Dretke, 383 F.3d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Rodriguez v. Apfel, No. 95-50703, 1998 WL 127813, *3 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished); Buchanan v. CCA/Tallahatchie Cnty.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Griffin v. Kennard Independent School District
We have held that an employee “has not been ‘replaced’ ... when his former duties are distributed *295 among other co-workers.” Rexses v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 401 Fed.Appx. 866, 868 (5th Cir.2010) (unpublished); see also Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 , 1998 WL 127729, at *3 (5th Cir.1998) (unpublished); Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir.1990). 3 That same holding applies here.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Rexses v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
See, e.g., Dulin v. Dover Elevator Co., 139 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.1998) (affirming district court’s holding that “when an employee’s position has been eliminated and the job duties reassigned to existing employees, that employee has not been replaced”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rodriguez
v.
Apfel
v.
Apfel
Rodriguez
v.
Apfel
NO. 95-50703
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 5, 1998
1
W.D.Tex. ,No.A95CV19 .