Samuel C. Miller v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, 83 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Samuel C. Miller v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, 83 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the purpose of compensatory damages is to restore the injured party to the party's original condition, i.e., to make the party whole.”
51 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Joshua Newlon v. Anton Sagan and Juicy Brewing, LLC (vaed, 2026-05-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Joshua Newlon v. Anton Sagan and Juicy Brewing, LLC
E.D. Va. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the purpose of compensatory damages is to restore the injured party to the party's original condition, i.e., to make the party whole.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benefits Committee Of Saint-Gobain Corporation v. Key Trust Company Of Ohio, N.A. (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
The Fourth Circuit has held that a plan sponsor may amend a plan to add provisions allowing the company to recover surplus assets even when unambiguous plan language requires all actions to be in the exclusive interest of the beneficiaries. 82 Id. at 452 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benefits Committee of Saint-Gobain Corp. v. Key Trust Co. of Ohio, N.A. (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id. at 452 (citation omitted).
cited Cited "see" Schrader v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.
M.D.N.C. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riley v. Murdock, 890 F.Supp. 444, 454 (E.D.N.C.1995), aff'd, 83 F.3d 415 , 1996 WL 209613 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 964 , 117 S.Ct. 387 , 136 L.Ed.2d 304 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Bussian v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riley v. Murdock, 83 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.1996) (refusing to adopt such a strict standard — and noting that no other federal court had adopted it — in affirming summary judgment for fiduciary who had purchased a group annuity contract from Executive Life) (per curiam) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" Sanders v. Seal Fleet, Inc.
E.D. Tex. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrineau, 940 F.Supp. at 154 (citing Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.1996)); Rich v. Southern Gulf Operators, 879 F.Supp. 49 , 51 n. 2 (E.D.Tex.1995) (holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
E.D. Va. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
When the defendant is a corporation, it resides “in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c); see also Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415 , 1996 WL 192058 , at *1 (4th Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Samuel C. Miller
v.
State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock
95-7403.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 23, 1996.
83 F.3d 415
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case

83 F.3d 415

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Samuel C. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7403.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1996.
Decided April 23, 1996.

Samuel C. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Miller v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-1970-3-18BD (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

DISMISSED.