green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.0 score
“ua local 343 i”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Local 159, 342, 343 & 444 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc.
ua local 343 i
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices
See Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535, 542 (9th Cir.1994) (“the first dictionary definition of ‘facsimile’ is ‘an exact and detailed copy of something.’ ” (quoting Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 813 (1976))), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 912 , 116 S.Ct. 297 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995); Cabazon II, 827 F.Supp. at 32 (same); Cabazon III, 14 F.3d at 636 (stating “[a]s commonly understood, facsimiles are exact copies, or duplicates.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.
See UA Local 343 of United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 516 U.S. 912 , 116 S.Ct. 297 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pall Corp. v. Fisher Scientific Co.
See Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1070 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 296 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995) (quoting Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 95 [5th Cir.1977]) (“non-party who has succeeded to a party’s interest in property is bound by any prior judgments against the party”); Golden State Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 414 U.S. 168, 179 , 94 S.Ct. 414, 423 , 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973) (“[pjersons acquiring *212 an interest in property that is a subject of litigation are bound by ... a su…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. E.C. Investments, Inc.
Instead, the district court should have looked to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1166 , which was enacted with IGRA in 1988. [2] Section 1166 states that, with the exception of Class III gaming conducted under an approved Tribal-State compact, “for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State.” 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (a), (c)(2) (Supp.1995); see Syc…
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1258, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2135 United States of America v. E.C. Investments, Inc., AKA Great Western Casino, Inc. William C. Armstrong Ira Englander Gyorgy Hargitai Roger Keesee
Instead, the district court should have looked to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1166 , which was enacted with IGRA in 1988. 9 Section 1166 states that, with the exception of Class III gaming conducted under an approved Tribal-State compact, "for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State." 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (a), (c)(2) (Supp.1995); see Sycuan Ba…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schultz v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, N.A.
See Gonzalez v. Banco Central Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 755 (1st Cir.1994); see also Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1069-70 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 296 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaming Corporation of America Golden Nickel Casinos, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership, in Re Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership
See, e.g., Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535, 538 (9th *544 Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 297 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995); Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin v. Morquist, 45 F.3d 1079 , 1082 (7th Cir.1995); Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma, 37 F.3d 1422, 1425 (10th Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1410 , 134 L.Ed.2d 537 (1996). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Environmental Dynamics, Inc. v. Robert Tyer & Associates, Inc.
See, e.g., UA Local 343 of United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus, of U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 38 F.3d 1467, 1477 (recognizing that the “alter ego” doctrine allows creditors of corporations to pierce the corporate shell to hold shareholders liable for corporate debts if they abuse the corporate form to defraud creditors, but distinguishing the doctrine from the "alter ego" doctrine developed in labor law, which is designed to prevent employers from escaping their collective bargaining obligations by shifting work to non-u…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
See, e.g., Becherer v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, 43 F.3d 1054 , 1070 (6th Cir.) ("Virtual representation demands the existence of an express or implied legal relationship in which parties to the first suit are accountable to non-parties who file a subsequent suit raising identical issues....”) (quoting Benson and Ford, Inc. v. Wanda Petroleum Co., 833 F.2d 1172, 1195 (5th Cir.1987)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct 296 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995); Klugh v. United States, 818 F.2d 294, 300-01 (4th Cir.1987) ("[P]arties to the first suit must be accountable to the nonparties who file …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Latham & Watkins
See, e.g., Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1064 (6th Cir.1995) 3 (“As is true in most jurisdictions, Florida law holds that courts should generally be reluctant to pierce the corporate veil”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 296 , 133 L.Ed.2d 203 (1995); Kingston Square Tenants Ass’n v. Tuskegee Gardens, Ltd., 792 F.Supp. 1566 , 1576 n. 7 (S.D.Fla.1992) (same); Roberts’ Fish Farm, 153 So.2d at 721 (same); Acquisition Corp. of America v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 543 So.2d 878, 882 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (same); Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bank One Chicago, N. A.
v.
Midwest Bank & Trust Co.
v.
Midwest Bank & Trust Co.
No. 94-1175.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 515 U. S. 1157.] Motion of New York Clearing House Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.