green
Positive treatment
28.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doug Woods v. Chavon Marie Landingham
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 715-16 (6th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cammon v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 715 (6th Cir. 2015).2 But when the movant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order, Rule 7.1(h)(2) requires that the motion 2 Courts in this district define a final order for purposes of Local Rule 7.1(h)(1) the same as a final order for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Queen v. Farhat
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Gelin v. Baltimore County, Maryland
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 717 (6th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Gelin v. Baltimore County, Maryland
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 717 (6th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Massey v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (internal citations omitted) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. Mandy
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015). 2 Because oral argument will not aid the Court’s decisional process, the issues will be decided based on the parties’ briefing.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angelo
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 715 (6th Cir. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Moss
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over “ineffective” notice of appeal where the district court had not yet resolved post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)). 2 that Plaintiff’s concerns about COVID-19 were too speculative to satisfy the imminent-danger exception.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCoy v. Smith
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over an “ineffective” notice of appeal where the district court had not yet decided a post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donaldson v. DeJoy
Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over an “ineffective” notice of appeal where the district court had not yet decided a post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christopher Hunter v. United States
See Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 715 (6th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up) (A “final” decision under § 1291 is a district court decision that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”); see also Moses H.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Taylor BELL Dora Bell, individually and as mother of Taylor Bell
v.
ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Teresa McNeece, Superintendent of Education for Itawamba County, individually and in her official capacity Trae Wiygul, Principal of Itawamba Agricultural High School, individually and in his official capacity
v.
ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Teresa McNeece, Superintendent of Education for Itawamba County, individually and in her official capacity Trae Wiygul, Principal of Itawamba Agricultural High School, individually and in his official capacity
12-60264.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 19, 2015.
Wilbur 0. Colom, Scott Winston Colom, Attorneys, Colom Law Firm, L.L.C., Columbus, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Benjamin Elmo Griffith, Griffith Law Firm, Oxford, MS, Michael Stephen Carr, Esq., Attorney, Griffith & Carr, Cleveland, MS, Michele H. Floyd, Fulton, MS, for Defendants-Appellees., Scott L. Sternberg, Baldwin Haspel Burke & Mayer, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Allyson Newton Ho, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Jeffrey Carl Mateer, General Counsel, Hiram S. Sasser, Esq., Liberty Institute, Plano, TX, for amici curiae.
Clement, Costa, Davis, Dennis, Elrod, Graves, Haynes, Higginson, Jolly, Jones, Owen, Prado, Smith, Southwick, Stewart.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
BY THE COURT:
A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.