green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.5 score
“party who has carried the burden of establishing an issue by a preponderance of the evidence is not entitled to assert preclusion in a later action that requires proof of the same issue by a higher standard”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bear
party who has carried the burden of establishing an issue by a preponderance of the evidence is not entitled to assert preclusion in a later action that requires proof of the same issue by a higher standard
cited
Cited "see"
Minor Metals, Inc. v. United States
See Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.— , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995); Morgan v. Office of Personnel Management, 773 F.2d 282, 287 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caddell Construction Co., Inc. v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
One Largo Metro, Llc v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Apparel, Inc. v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.) cert. denied 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mobile Medical International Corp. v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metropolitan Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States
Co., 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed.Cir.)) cert. denied 516 U.S. 916 , 116 S.Ct. 304 , 133 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cheshire Medical Center
v.
W. R. Grace & Co.
v.
W. R. Grace & Co.
No. 95-263.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Maryland (1)
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.