green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Donato v. Moldow
See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 334 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 , 118 S.Ct. 2341 , 141 L.Ed. 2d 712 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwards
See In Re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2340 , 141 L.Ed.2d 712 (1998). 46 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sassano
See, e.g., Lefcourt v. United States, 125 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.1997) (citing cases), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 , 118 S.Ct. 2341 , 141 L.Ed.2d 712 (1998). 4 While Sassano’s attorney states that the information “could be detrimental to Mr. Sassano,” the Second Circuit has held that “possible or even likely client incrimination” does not “constitute[ ] a special circumstance justifying nondisclosure,” id. at 86; accord Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., 220 F.Supp.2d 283, 288 (S.D.N.Y.2002); see also In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62-63 (2d Cir.1984) (limiting prot…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph Rodia
See Bishop, 66 F.3d at 581 (noting that Congress could have believed that it had to regulate carjacking, “whether or not it was strictly ‘commercial’ or ‘economic,’” as one aspect of its response to the national commercial problem of criminal auto theft); see also National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041, 1049 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“A class of activities can substantially affect interstate commerce regardless of whether the activity at issue—in this case the taking of endangered species—is commercial or noncommercial.”), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 234…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County
Compare National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2340 , 141 L.Ed.2d 712 (1998) (when incidental take permit holder proposes to violate conservation plan, new take permit may be required).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Florida
Compare National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2340 , 141 L.Ed.2d 712 (1998) (when incidental take permit holder proposes to violate conservation plan, new take permit may be required). 130 As I understand it, there are two kinds of takings involved here.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 97-1517.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 22, 1998.
Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.