green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.4 score
“referential treatment on the basis of a consensual romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee is not gender-based discrimination.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Maner v. Dignity Health
referential treatment on the basis of a consensual romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee is not gender-based discrimination.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
No. 99-3473
he state may constitutionally place nondiscriminatory, content-neutral limitations on the plaintiffs' ability to initiate legislation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zummer v. Sallet
See Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997); Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (DC Cir.1999), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1234 , 116 S.Ct. 1877 , 135 L.Ed.2d 173 (1996); Brazil v. United States Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193 , 195 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1103 , 116 S.Ct. 1317 , 134 L.Ed.2d 470 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murray v. City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina
See Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145,149-50 (4th Cir.1996) (holding that no sex discrimination exists under Title VII even if a supervisor granted the plaintiffs co-worker job benefits in exchange for sexual favors), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ott v. City of Mobile
(2×)
See Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966 (3rd Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1086 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997); Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319 (2nd Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 922 , 107 S.Ct. 1384 , 94 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shaheem Johnson
See United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1996), cert . denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shaheem Johnson, United States of America v. Raheem Johnson
See United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 220 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patrick Howard Bailey v. Commonwealth of Virginia
See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 868-70 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997) (factors which further circumstantial evidence that defendant involved in conspiracy include being acquainted with other conspirators, exchanging telephone numbers, and purchasing their - 7 - train tickets).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Dalton
See Randall v. U.S., 95 F.3d 339 , 343 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1150 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997) (“Congress intended to include ... civilian employees of the military department ... within the reach of Title VII”.) Thus, we see no reason for excluding plaintiff from Title VII coverage particularly since he acknowledges his status as a civilian employee. 1 TITLE VII — EXCLUSIVE REMEDY Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, “provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment.” Brown v. G.S.A., 425 U.S. 820…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Randy Lavon McNair
See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cheryll S. Coon, United States of America v. Ferrell Travis Riley
See United States v. Damico, 99 F.3d 1431, 1435-38 (7th Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1086 , 137 L.Ed.2d 220 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas G. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Joan B. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Alexandra Reinbold Brandelin Reinbold v. Wayne K. Evers, Commander, Usn Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant, (Usn. Ret.), Thomas B. Reinbold Joan B. Reinbold, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children, Alexandra Reinbold and Brandelin Reinbold v. United States of America William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense Diana L. Healy John M. Schmidt, Individually and as Employee of the National Security Agency Kenneth Minihan, Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, Director, National Security Agency, in Their Official Capacities John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, in His Official Capacity Two Unknown Named Non-Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers, Individually and as Members of the United States Navy U.S. Department of Defense National Security Agency United States Department of the Navy, and Wayne K. Evers, Commander Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant
Accordingly, the Supreme Court declared that the approval, denial, or revocation of an individual's security clearance is within the Executive Branch's purview and"unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive [Branch] in military and national security affairs." Id. at 530 . 40 Since the Supreme Court decided Egan, this circuit has taken the view that "unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, the courts will not intrude upon the [Executive Branch's] authority to grant or deny access to na…
discussed
Cited "see"
Reinbold v. Evers
Since the Supreme Court decided Egan , this circuit has taken the view that “unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, the courts will not intrude upon the [Executive Branch’s] authority to grant or deny access to national security information.” Guillot v. Garrett, 970 F.2d 1320, 1324 (4th Cir.1992); accord Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 148-49 (4th Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997); Jamil v. Secretary, Dep’t. of Defense, 910 F.2d 1203 , 1207-08 (4th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cheryll Coon
See United States v. Damico, 99 F.3d 1431, 1435-38 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth A. Dockins v. Benchmark Communications
(2×)
See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 868 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) ("Determining credibility of witnesses and resolving conflicting testimony falls within the province of the factfinder, not the reviewing court.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ryan, John Clement v. Reno, Janet
See Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1087 , 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997); Perez v. FBI, 71 F.3d 513 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1234 , 116 S.Ct. 1877 , 135 L.Ed.2d 173 (1996); Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193 , 195 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1103 , 116 S.Ct. 1317 , 134 L.Ed.2d 470 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.
(2×)
See Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F. 3d 1491 , *192 1494, 1500-1501 (CA11 1996) (upholding single subject and unambiguous title requirements for initiative proposals to amend Florida's Constitution), cert. denied, 519 U. S. 1151 (1997); Taxpayers United For Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F. 2d 291, 293-294, 296-297 (CA6 1993) (upholding Michigan procedures for checking voters' signatures on initiative petitions). [11] We have several times said "no litmus-paper test" will separate valid ballot-access provisions from invalid interactive speech restrictions; we have come upon "no substitute for the ha…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooper v. Productive Transportation Services Inc.
Owen Equip. and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 , 98 S.Ct. 2396 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); see Randall v. United States, 95 F.3d 339, 344 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Bulldog Trucking, Incorporated
Owen Equip. and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 , 98 S.Ct. 2396 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); see Randall v. United States, 95 F.3d 339, 344 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1150 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mark P. Bigger
See United States v. Damico, 99 F.3d 1431, 1437-38 (7th Cir.) (adjustments under § 3B1.1 should be applied "by looking to the count of conspiracy [ ] and all relevant conduct within the scope of section 1B1.3."), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1086 , 137 L.Ed.2d 220 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arneson v. Wolf
See Schluraff v. Rzymek, 417 Pa. 144 , 208 A.2d 239, 239 (1965) (finding removable a member of the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes, despite the fact that the statute creating the position, Act of June 26, 1931, P.L. 1379, 72 P.S. § 5342, repealed by Act of October 27, 2010, P.L. 895, then provided that "The members of said board shall be appointed by the county commissioners of such counties to serve terms of four years each.”); see also Pievsky v. Ridge, 98 F.3d 730, 734 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1150 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997) (rejecting a Delawar…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream
(2×)
See, e.g., Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., 182 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir.1999) (citing Insty*Bit, Inc. v. Poly-Tech Indus., 95 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Venesky v. Ridge
See also Pievsky v. Ridge, 98 F.3d 730 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1150 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997) (noting that Pennsylvania law is consistent with federal law on this issue, in the context of construing an interstate compact between Pennsylvania and New Jersey). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hubbard Feeds, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., D/B/A New Generation Feeds, Inc. Denis J. Daly Jeff Westberg Larry Russell Smith Keith Hollingsworth
(2×)
When applying the DataPhase factors, as they have come to be called, "'a court should flexibly weigh the case's particular circumstances to determine whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that justice requires the court to intervene.'" Clorox, 140 F.3d at 1179 (quoting DataPhase, 640 F.2d at 113 ). 1 To succeed on the merits of its trademark and trade dress 3 infringement claims, Hubbard will have to demonstrate at trial that the half-barrel container is entitled to protection and that AFS's use of the container is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of AFS's product. 4…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc.
(2×)
To succeed on the merits of its trademark and trade dress 3 infringement claims, Hubbard will have to demonstrate at trial that the half-barrel container is entitled to protection and that AFS’s use of the container is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of AFS’s product. 4 See 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (l)(a) (1994); see also Insty*Bit, Inc. v. Poly-Tech Indus., 95 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997); Dakota Indus. v. Ever Best Ltd., 944 F.2d 438, 440 (8th Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pedro Martinez, Iii, A/K/A Pete
Lee, 113 F.3d at 76-77 ; see also United States v. Damico, 99 F.3d 1431, 1434 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 , 117 S.Ct. 1086 , 137 L.Ed.2d 220 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Turner v. City of Philadelphia
Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1480 (3d Cir.1990) (citations omitted); see also Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, 971 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1086 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Big Top USA, Inc. v. Wittern Group
Stuart Hall Co. v. Ampad Corp., 51 F.3d 780, 787-88 (8th Cir.1995) (considering product configuration of personal project planner and notebook); see also Insty*Bit, Inc. v. Poly-Tech Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 663, 672-73 (8th Cir.1996) (considering trade dress of “quick-change drill chucks and related accessories”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lainer v. Bandwagon, Inc.
Stuart Hall Co., Inc. v. Ampad Corp., 51 F.3d 780, 787-88 (8th Cir.1995) (considering product configuration of personal project planner and notebook); see also Insty*Bit, Inc. v. Poly-Tech Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 663, 672-73 (8th Cir.1996) (considering trade dress of “quick-change drill chucks and related accessories”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1085 , 137 L.Ed.2d 219 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Poly-Tech Industries, Inc.
v.
InstyBit, Inc.
v.
InstyBit, Inc.
No. 96-1153.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1997.
Published
Citer courts: D. Arizona (1) · Eighth Circuit (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.