green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
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)
Benavides v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Tex. Jan. 27, 2000) (listing 15 previous federal suits filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that had been dismissed, three of which had been dismissed as frivolous); Benavides v. Sanez, No. 95-40306, 1998 WL 858817, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 1998) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Benavides v. Pursley, 68 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s denial of reconsideration of dismissal of the suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d)); Benavides v. Whitaker, 20 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benavides v. Drug Enforcement Agency
Tex. Jan. 27, 2000) (listing 15 previous federal suits filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that had been dismissed, three of which had been dismissed as frivolous); Benavides v. Sanez, No. 95-40306, 1998 WL 858817, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 1998) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Benavides v. Pursley, 68 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s denial of reconsideration of dismissal of the suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d)); Benavides v. Whitaker, 20 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benavides v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Tex. Jan. 27, 2000) (listing 15 previous federal suits filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that had been dismissed, three of which had been dismissed as frivolous); Benavides v. Sanez, No. 95-40306, 1998 WL 858817, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 1998) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Benavides v. Pursley, 68 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s denial of reconsideration of dismissal of the suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d)); Benavides v. Whitaker, 20 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kesse v. Ford Motor Company
See Baker v. Mercedes Benz of North Am., 163 F.3d 1356 (table) (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming exclusion of expert testimony that electromagnetic interference caused accident, because the theory had not been tested); Buck v. Ford Motor Co., 810 F Supp.2d 815, 831 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jefferson v. Community Bank (In re Jefferson)
Co., No. 06-31178, 2008 WL 3086783 , at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2008) (unpublished); see Borgships, Inc. v. Ferrera, 163 F.3d 1356 , 1998 WL 857875, *3 (5th Cir.1998) (discussing Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 74 F.3d 567 (5th Cir.1996), in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal based on forum non conveniens doctrine as on the merits of the f.n.c. issue but not on the merits of the entire claim for res judicata purposes); Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir.1980) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not adjudicate merits thus no res judicata on substance of claim asserted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dissent - North Sails Group, LLC v. Boards & More GMBH
The limitation has been applied, for example, with respect to transactions involving a onetime product sale or short-term service contract to be performed entirely outside of the forum state; see, e.g., Wilkerson, Tate & Williams, LLC v. Bouza, Docket No. 97-31259, 1998 WL 857883 , *1–2 (5th Cir. November 18, 1998) (decision without published opinion, 163 F.3d 1356 ); Chung v. NANA Development Corp., 783 F.2d 1124 , 1125–26 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 948 , 107 S. Ct. 431 , 93 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benavides
v.
Sanez[*]
NO. 95-40306
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
November 19, 1998
Appeal From: S.D.Tex. , No.CA-G-90-8
1
Dismissed.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34-2