Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 158 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 158 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hawkins v. Gibson (ca10, 2002-05-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawkins v. Gibson (2×)
10th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
"The test for determining whether the retroactive application of a judicial decision violates due process is essentially one of foreseeability." Johnson v. Kindt, 158 F.3d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir.1998). 20 McDonald v. Champion, 962 F.2d 1455 , guides this court's analysis of this issue. 3 McDonald involved a habeas proceeding and a markedly similar claim.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Moore (6×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. · 2001 · confidence medium
“Unforeseeable judicial decisions include expansion of a statute narrow and precise on its face beyond [its] terms, ...; the overruling of precedent, ...; or when ‘an in— depth inquiry by a dedicated and educated student of [the relevant] law would have revealed nothing to foreshadow the [controlling court] opinion,’...” Johnson, 158 F.3d at 1063 (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Davis (4×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2000 · confidence medium
“The test for determining whether the retroactive application of a judicial decision violates due process is essentially one of foreseeability.” Johnson v. Kindt, 158 F.3d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075 , 119 S.Ct. 811 , 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America,plaintiff-Appellant v. Erwin Darrell Newman,amended Opinion
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Other circuits have held that due process concerns of Bouie are implicated in “ ‘after-the-fact increases in the degree of punishment’ as well as ‘the ex post facto construction of substantive criminal statutes.’ ” Johnson v. Kindt, 158 F.3d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir.1998) (citing Helton v. Fauver, 930 F.2d 1040, 1045 (3rd Cir.1991)).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Hansen
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. Kindt, 158 F.3d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075 , 119 S.Ct. 811 , 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Etim U. Aka v. Washington Hospital Center (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 138 F.3d 1304, 1308-10 (10th Cir.1998), rehearing in banc granted, 158 F.3d 1060 , No. 96-3018, 1998 WL 686450 , slip op. at 1 (10th Cir. May 5,1998). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert W. Smith
v.
Midland Brake, Inc., a Division of Echlin, Inc., Equal Employment Advisory Council Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City and County of Denver, Amici Curiae
96-3018.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 5, 1998.
158 F.3d 1060
Published

158 F.3d 1060

8 A.D. Cases 1093

Robert W. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIDLAND BRAKE, INC., a division of Echlin, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Equal Employment Advisory Council; Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; City and County of
Denver, Amici Curiae.

No. 96-3018.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

May 5, 1998.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

[*~1060]1

The court grants rehearing en banc in this case on the issue of interpretation of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., specifically 42 U.S .C. § 12111(9)(B).

[*~1063]2

Appellant shall file a supplemental brief on or before June 4, 1998. Appellee shall file a response brief within 25 days of service of appellant's brief.