green
Positive treatment
3.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.
Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1152 , (AMC's Reply, Ex. 29,); but see Southmark Corp. v. Crescent Heights VI, Inc., No. 95-10849, 95 F.3d 53 (5th Cir. July 26, 1996) (not prece-dential pursuant to Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Antonio Jimenez, III v. Sun Life Assurance Company
See In re Southmark Corp., 95 F.3d 53 , 1996 WL 459958 , at *3 n. 7 (5th Cir. July 26, 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Neither party has adequately briefed the potentially complex choice of law issues presented by the facts of this case.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cadle Co. v. Mims
See Southmark Corp. v. Crescent Heights VI, Inc. (In re Southmark Corp.), 95 F.3d 53 (5th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (unpublished) (table), 1996 WL 459958 , at *6-*7 (reasoning that allowing "the very party that abused [the corporate form] in the first place” to bring a reverse veil-piercing action "would seem to disserve [the] purpose” of the equitable remedy). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shane L. Hill v. Gerald A. Turlich, Jr., Warden Denise Narcisse, and Correctional Food Service
See, e.g., Jones v. Barthelemy, 95 F.3d 53 , 1996 WL 460003 , at*2 (5th Cir. June 30, 1996) (affirming dismissal of detainee’s claim challenging high commissary prices, noting “a condition is not tantamount to punishment merely because it interferes with a detainee’s desire to live more comfortably”); McCall v. Keefe 5 The Court must liberally construe a pro se civil rights complaint.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hernandez v. El Pasoans Fighting Hunger
See, e.g., Dorsey v. Stine, 95 F.3d 53 , 1996 WL 459953, at *1 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing then-current 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), which at that time provided for sua sponte dismissal if the court found the complaint to be frivolous); Cole v. Wadley, 102 F.3d 551 , 1996 WL 670394, at *1 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished) (noting statutory amendment that moved what was § 1915(d) to now-current § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Pub.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raza-Espinoza
v.
INS
v.
INS
94-41203.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 2, 1996.
95 F.3d 53
Unpublished
Razo-Espinoza
v.
INS[*]
NO. 94-41203
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
July 29, 1996
Appeal From: D.Tex., No. Abq-gwj-iix
1
DISMISSED.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2