green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.5 score
“federal law may preclude state law that is inconsistent with ... the federal law.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
federal law may preclude state law that is inconsistent with ... the federal law.
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. City & County of Denver
Accord Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283, 1291-93 (3d Cir.), affirmed on other grounds, 22 F.3d 1296 (3d Cir.1994)(en banc); Parrish v. Luckie, 963 F.2d 201, 207 (8th Cir.1992); Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 888 (9th Cir.1992). .
discussed
Cited "see"
45 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1143, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8007, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,300 Johanna Trevino v. Daryl Gates Tom Bradley Tom Reddin Roger Murdock Ed Davis Herbert Boeckmann James Fisk Stephen Gavin Maxwell Greenberg Elbert Hudson Marguerite Justice Emmett McGaughey Salvador Montenegro Barbara Schlei Robert Talcott Reva Tooley Robert Weil Samuel Williams Stephen Yslas Lapd Officers Jerry Brooks Joseph Callian Warren Sirk Richard Spellman Gary Strickland James Tippings Richard Zierenberg Manuel Avila Charles Bennett Brian Davis John Fruge Joseph Freia E.T. Guiza Peter Sanchez Reginald Weaver James Toma C.S. Winston Philip Wixon Gary Zerbey Joel Wachs Joy Picus John Ferraro Zev Yaroslavsky Ruth Galanter Ernani Bernardi Nate Holden Marvin Braude Hal Bernson Michael Woo Joan Flores One Hundred Unknown Named Employees or Officials of the City of Los Angeles, All in Both Their Individual and Official Capacities City of Los Angeles, Johanna Trevino v. Daryl F. Gates, Chief of Police Tom Bradley Tom Reddin Roger Murdock Ed Davis Herbert Boeckmann James Fisk Stephen Gavin Maxwell Greenberg Elbert Hudson Marguerite Justice Emmett McGaughey Salvador Montenegro Barbara L. Schlei Robert Talcott Reva B. Tooley Robert Weil Samuel L. Williams Stephen D. Yslas Jerry Brooks Joseph Callian Warren Eggar David B. Harrison John Helms Michael Sirk Richard Spellman Gary Strickland James Tippings Richard Zierenberg Manuel Avila Charles Bennett Brian Davis John Fruge Joseph Freia E.T. Guiza Peter Sanchez Reginald Weaver James Toma C.S. Winston Philip Wixon Gary Zerbey Joel Wachs Joy Picus John Ferraro Zev Yaroslavsky Ruth Galanter Ernani Bernardi Nate Holden Marvin Braude Hal Bernson Michael Woo Joan Milke Flores One Hundred Unknown Named Employees/officials of the City of Los Angeles, All in Both Their Individual and Official Capacities City of Los Angeles
See Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1449-50 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995). 21 Therefore, we conclude that the law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights, either now or prior to the robbery.
cited
Cited "see"
Trevino v. Gates
See Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1449-50 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Reynolds ex rel. Estate of Reynolds v. County of San Diego
See Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 885-88 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3752, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6115 Jeanette Reynolds, as Administrator of the Estate of Paul Reynolds, Deceased, and Individually v. County of San Diego Jeffrey Jackson, Jim Roache, Sheriff, Denise Reynolds v. County of San Diego Jeffrey Jackson, Jim Roache, Sheriff
See Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 885-88 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reed v. Town of Babylon
See Cane v. Worcester County, Maryland, 35 F.3d 921, 927 (4th Cir.1994) (noting applicability of Shaw to first Gingles precondition and finding plaintiffs’ plan to have met precondition even where plan split political subdivisions since minority district was similar in shape to a former district and plan conformed to traditional districting principles of conformance with natural boundaries and respect for shared socioeconomic and political concerns), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Jeffers v. Tucker, 847 F.Supp. 655, 661 (E.D.Ark. 1994) (three-judge court)…
cited
Cited "see"
Vecinos De Barrio Uno v. City of Holyoke
See Cane v. Worcester County, 35 F.3d 921, 927 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Westwego, 946 F.2d at 1124 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hall v. Virginia
See also Cane v. Worcester County, 35 F.3d 921, 925-26 (4th Cir.1994) (same), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1148 , 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Smith v. Brunswick County, 984 F.2d 1393, 1400-02 (4th Cir.1993) (same); McGhee v. Granville County, 860 F.2d 110, 119 (4th Cir.1988) (noting that the Gingles preconditions preclude "some small and unconcentrated minority groups" from bringing a vote dilution claim — the issue of "influence" or “coalition” districts was not addressed). 12 .Neither the briefs submitted by the parties nor the Court’s own research disclose any District Court…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc.
App. 3d 782, 785-86 , 455 N.E.2d 811 (1983) (“where, as here, issues of both liability and damages are sent to the jury and the jury simply returns a general verdict [against the plaintiff], estoppel will not be applied since it is not certain whether the jury found against [the] plaintiff on liability or on damages or both”); see also Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1148 , 115 S. Ct. 1097 , 130 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc.
Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ .443(4), at III.—681 (2d ed. 1984); see also Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir.1994) (“Necessary inferences from the judgment, pleadings, and evidence will be given preclusive effect_ - Where the prior judgment was based on a general verdict, the inquiry is whether rational jurors must necessarily have determined the issue as to which estoppel is sought.”) (citations omitted), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation v. City of Monterey
See, e.g., Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1443 (9th Cir.1994) (whether release of police dog on individual was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is a question for the jury), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Hemphill v. Kincheloe, 987 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir.1993) (whether prisoner searches are reasonably related to legitimate penological goal is question for the jury); Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646 , 654 n. 4 (9th Cir.1983) (whether city’s action was rationally related to a public purpose is question of fact).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1006, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1678 Stephanie G. Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon City of Portland, Oregon Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Steve Duncan Janet Bowdle And, George Karcher
See, e.g., Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1209 (9th Cir.1994) (finding that an officer who acts in reliance on a duly enacted ordinance usually is entitled to qualified immunity). 18 However, "an officer who unlawfully enforces an ordinance in a particularly egregious manner, or in a manner which a reasonable officer would recognize exceeds the bounds of the ordinance, will not be entitled to immunity even if there is no clear case law declaring the ordinance or the officer's particular conduct unconstitutional." Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1209 -10 (citing Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McRae v. Tena
See also, Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1443 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Reed for the proposition that whether a particular use of force was reasonable is rarely determinable as a matter of law), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1097 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tom Rapp v. United States Department Of Treasury, Office Of Thrift Supervision
See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. U.S. EPA, 35 F.3d 600, 606 (1st Cir.1994) (due process does not require agency to convene evidentiary hearing when no genuine issue of material fact exists), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1096 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Oklahoma Bankers Ass'n v. Federal Reserve Board, 766 F.2d 1446, 1452 (10th Cir.1985) (agency must provide evidentiary hearing where dispute of material fact exists).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rapp v. United States Department of Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision
See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. U.S. EPA, 35 F.3d 600, 606 (1st Cir.1994) (due process does not require agency to convene eviden-tiary hearing when no genuine issue of material fact exists), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1096 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1995); Oklahoma Bankers Ass'n v. Federal Reserve Board, 766 F.2d 1446, 1452 (10th Cir.1985) (agency must provide evi-dentiary hearing where dispute of material fact exists).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Virginia Gasoline Marketers & Automotive Repair Assn., Inc.
v.
Mobil Oil Corp.
v.
Mobil Oil Corp.
No. 94-1000.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1995.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.