green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · 2 courts ·
…here there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Skakel v. Comm'r of Corr.
specially given the gravity of the criminal charges was facing, counsel could not have reasonably elected to rely exclusively on and forgo any investigation into
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
GE Engine Services UNC Holding I, Inc. v. Century Indemnity Co.
here there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: K F Dairies, Inc. & Affiliates, Debtors. K F Dairies, Inc. & Affiliates v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
here there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts.
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps
See Duffield v. Robertson, Stephens & Co., 525 U.S. 982 , 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps
See Duffield v. Robertson, Stephens & Co., 525 U.S. 982 , 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Samedi v. Miami-Dade County
See Mencer v. Hammonds, 134 F.3d 1066 , 1070 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 982 , 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998) (noting the intent requirement established for equal protection violations in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-44 , 96 S.Ct. 2040 , 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)).
cited
Cited "see"
Julie Beaty v. Bet Holdings, Inc.
See Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1206-07 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 981 , 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
Susan A. Desiderio v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
See Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , — U.S. -, -, 119 S.Ct. 445 , 465, 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth E. Sutton, Jr. v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, a California Non-Profit Corporation
See Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182, 1202 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998); Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 708 (9th Cir.1997); Morse v. North Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir.1997); Broad v. Sealaska Corp., 85 F.3d 422, 431 (9th Cir.1996); Price, 939 F.2d at 707-09 ; Gorenc, 869 F.2d at 508-09 .
cited
Cited "see"
Heliotrope General, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
See Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANK’S NURSERY & CRAFTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182, 1198-1200 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hart v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
See Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 and — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 465 , 142 L.Ed.2d 418 (1998) (Nos. 98-237 and 98-409).
cited
Cited "see"
Susan M. ROSENBERG, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. and John Wyllys, Defendants, Appellants
See id. at 1198 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Simpson
See also Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 981 , 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (holding that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they failed to inform suspects arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of their choice of alcohol tests, pursuant to California's implied consent statute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ravotto
(2×)
See, e.g., Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.) (concluding that when suspect agrees to provide equally useful chemical sample, government’s need for evidentiary sample disappears), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 981 , 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998); Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (upholding, in plurality opinion, jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 action involving forced blood sample in part because plaintiff had agreed to breath test), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re David's Supermarkets, Inc.
See, e.g., Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182 , 1187 n. 3 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 982 , 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998); Swenson, 858 F.2d at 1309 ; DeSapio, 143 Misc.2d at 616 , 540 N.Y.S.2d at 936 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.
In fact, one of the clear purposes of the 1991 Act was “to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Historical and Statutory Notes section entitled Purposes of 1991 Amendments (emphasis added); see also, Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 982 , 119 S.Ct. 445 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998) (characterizing this purpose as the “primary purpose”). 9 This point deserves attention because denying class certification does not mean that plaintiffs will ultimately …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Goins v. Angelone
See, e.g., Huffington v. Nuth, 140 F.3d 572, 582 (4th *653 Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998) (finding that failure to call rebuttal witness, even if objectively unreasonable, was not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Buehl v. Vaughn
See, e.g., Huffington v. Nuth, 140 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 444 , 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998); Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Ortiz, 136 F.3d 161, 166-67 (D.C.Cir.1998); United States v. Prows, 118 F.3d 686, 692-93 (10th Cir.1997); Hays v. Alabama, 85 F.3d 1492 , 1496 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1123 , 117 S.Ct. 1262 , 137 L.Ed.2d 341 (1997); United States v. Gregory, 74 F.3d 819, 823 (7th Cir.1996); Scarpa v. DuBois, 38 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1129 , 115 S.Ct. 940 , 130 L.Ed.2d 885…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincent C. PIANO, a/k/a Vic Piano, et ux.
v.
Albert F. NASUTI, Trustee
v.
Albert F. NASUTI, Trustee
No. 98-407.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 9, 1998.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.