green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
9.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1990 ·
…the test for immunity should be whether the law was clear in relation to the specific facts confronting the public official when he acted
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Goddard, Inc. v. Henry's Foods, Inc.
here is no federal law claim for unfair competition.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Carrera v. Yepez
ujnder harlow the district court must conduct a two-part analysis: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation? and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question? ... intent is relevant to (1) but not to (2).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Frank Barrett v. Nancy I. Harrington, A/K/A Penny Harrington
an investigation conducted in retaliation for comments pro-tecled by the first amendment could be actionable under section 1983
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ronald J. Vacca v. David Barletta
although the qualified immunity determination is a legal question, it is not to be answered in the abstract but in reference to the particular facts of the case.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Helen J. Guercio v. George Brody (88-2013) and John Feikens (89-1137)
(2×)
the test for immunity should be whether the law was clear in relation to the specific facts confronting the public official when he acted
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. United States
In Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988), the Federal Circuit held that judicial estoppel is not applicable where “there has been no judicial acceptance of the asserted inconsistent position ..., there is no risk of inconsistent results, no effect on the integrity of the judicial process, and no perception that the court has been misled.” Id. at 666.
cited
Cited "see"
Cory D. Chan, Cross-Appellee v. Edward S. Wodnicki, Individually and in His Former Capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209-10 (7th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Kerr v. Puckett
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1201-02 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1201-02 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sensonics, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Aerosonic Corp., and Herbert J. Frank
See Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660 , 7 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed.Cir.) (finding liability for inducement based on specific circumstances of personal control of Calco’s manufacture of the infringing products), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1578-79 , 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1090 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Roton Barrier, Inc. And Austin R. Baer v. The Stanley Works
See Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660 , 670, 7 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. TURA LP
See Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed.Cir.) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc., 771 F.Supp. 1390, 1404 (D.N.J.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Margaret H. Wright v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 , 1191 *1501 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); cf. Tmka v. Local Union No. 688, 30 F.3d 60 , 63 (7th Cir.1994) (“To stave off summary judgment in a ease where innocent or multiple explanations for a defendant’s actions abound a plaintiff must rely on more than post hoc, propter hoc reasoning.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
L.A. Gear, Inc. v. E.S. Originals, Inc.
Indirect Infringement Indirect infringement occurs when someone “actively induces infringement of a patent [by another].” 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) (emphasis added). 4 Although Section 271(b) does not specifically define the level of knowledge or intent required for liability, the Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “proof of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute the infringement is a necessary prerequisite to finding active inducement.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed.Cir.1990); accord Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660,…
discussed
Cited "see"
Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Zenith Electronics Corp.
(2×)
See Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Morgan v. Union County
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F. 2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed. 2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
James Meyer v. Lana J. Robinson, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lawrence
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.
See Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 666 (Fed.Cir.) (“the open-ended phrase ‘comprising’ ... does not, however, exclude the addition of another ingredient which does not materially affect the characteristics of the invention”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. Stephenson
Prokey v. Watkins, 942 F.2d 67, 73 (1st Cir.1991); See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1202 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sheldon L. Wulf v. The City of Wichita, Gene Denton, and Richard Lamunyon
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1211 (7th Cir.) (“[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.”) (quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 272 , 62 S.Ct. 190, 198 , 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); see also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 , 84 S.Ct. 710, 720 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. Bobbitt
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. Bobbitt
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. den. --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. den. — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Melton v. City Of Oklahoma City
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1204 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). 101 1.
cited
Cited "see"
Melton v. City of Oklahoma City
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1204 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. Board of Educ. of the City of Chicago
See Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1213 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 276 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848 , 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
VLT CORP. v. Unitrode Corp.
See, e.g., Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 669 (Fed.Cir.) (defendant who assisted in the design of infringing device and exerted control over manufacture devices held liable under § 271(b)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 498 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jabat, Inc., Plaintiff/counterclaim v. Gary Smith and the Links Co., Defendants/counterclaimants/third-Party v. K. Jabat, Inc., Third-Party
See also Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1192 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rubeck v. Sheriff of Wabash County
See also Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Steven Hill v. William Shelander
See, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557 , 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1219 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Wood v. Strickland 420 U.S. 308, 322 , 95 S.Ct. 992, 1000-01 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); see also Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1205 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing development of qualified immunity from Pierson to Harlow), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
James White v. Hezikiah Walker, X Bonding Company, and Town of Verona, Mississippi
See Thorsted v. Kelly, 858 F.2d 571, 575 (9th Cir.1988); see also Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1201 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon
See, e.g., Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1189 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (First Amendment retaliatory action), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon
See, e.g., Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1189 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (First Amendment retaliatory action), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) 4 Paragraph 13 of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint states: Defendants' said conduct was at all times wanton, reckless, malicious, willful, illegal, and in bad faith thereby to deliberately discriminate against plaintiff because he is a black man's lawyer and a Baptist preacher-lawyer, in violation of the First Amendment, implicating Sec. 1981; and thereby to take plaintiff's liberty and property interests without due …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Poindexter et ux.
v.
Town of Rocky Mount
v.
Town of Rocky Mount
No. 88-642.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (3) · First Circuit (1) · D. Minnesota (1) · Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.