green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Linton v. Airbus Industrie
See Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 30 F.3d 592, 600 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994)(hereinafter “Linton II ”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mangrum v. U S West Communications, Inc.
See Sutherland v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 894 F.Supp. 1488, 1495 (D.Kan.1995) (“That plaintiffs interpretation of the contract or the underlying facts is different from the union’s is insufficient to present a question for trial. ‘It is not the function of the jury in cases such as this to second-guess the Union.’ ” (quoting Cox v. Boeing Co., 833 F.Supp. 836, 843 (D.Kan.1993), aff’d, 25 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1044 , 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994))).
cited
Cited "see"
Quebe v. Ford Motor Co.
See Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 30 F.3d 592 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Arnold v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co
See, e.g., Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 30 F.3d 592 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1044 , 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5188, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8403 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe v. Harold Scott, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue Tony West, in His Official Capacity as Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellants v. Prescott Convention Center, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee
See, e.g., A.R.S. § 13-2310 (fraudulent schemes and artifices). 61 (b) The law governing liens, Red Mountain Machinery Co. v. Grace Investment Co., 29 F.3d 1408 , (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1044 , 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994), and other security instruments such as the mortgages by which the Hotel is financed. 62 (c) The law governing employment at the Hotel, including the workman's compensation law specifically referenced by the lease. 63 In the light of these facts, we address preemption.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yavapai-prescott Indian Tribe v. Scott
See, e.g., A.R.S. § 13-2310 (fraudulent schemes and artifices). (b) The law governing liens, Red Mountain Machinery Co. v. Grace Investment Co., 29 F.3d 1408 , (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1044 , 115 S.Ct. 639 , 130 L.Ed.2d 545 (1994), and other security instruments such as the mortgages by which the Hotel is financed. (c) The law governing employment at the Hotel, including the workman’s compensation law specifically referenced by the lease.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cox
v.
Boeing Co.
v.
Boeing Co.
No. 94-703.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 5, 1994.
Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.