green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC v. High Watch Recovery Center, Inc.
Ed. 2d 693 (2001); but see Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital, 185 F.3d 154, 162 (3rd Cir. 1999) (plaintiff’s claim that defendant committed antitrust violation by inducing state regulators to deny certificate of need application on basis of allegedly false and misleading statements did not satisfy sham exception because ‘‘[l]iability for injuries caused by such state action is precluded even where it is alleged that a private party urging the action did so by bribery, deceit or other wrongful conduct that may have affected the decision making process�…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS)Seneka v. County of Yolo
the 22 state of california has not waived its eleventh amendment immunity with respect to claims 23 brought under 1983 in federal court, and the supreme court has held that 1983 was not 24 intended to abrogate a state's eleventh amendment immunity
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shannon v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
n employer who discriminates against its employee is unlikely to leave a well-marked trail, such as making a notation to that effect in the employee's personnel file.
discussed
Cited "see"
Chima
See Dittman v. 3 State of California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 (2000) 4 (“The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims 5 brought under § 1983 in federal court” and “§ 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State’s 6 Eleventh Amendment immunity.”) (internal citations omitted). 7 Thus, if Plaintiff seeks to bring claims against the State of California “through its agencies, 8 including the Judicial Council of California, the Superior Court of California, County of San 9 Francisco, and Doe Agenc…
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Rockland County BOCES
See Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 137 (2d Cir.) (“The inconsistency between the justifications offered for [the plaintiff’s] dismissal . . . raises a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the veracity of this non-discriminatory reason.” (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 (2000); Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129, 139 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that “[c]ircumstantial evidence in the form of differing and inconsistent explanations from the [defendant] raise questions of fact to rebut its alleged non-discriminatory reasons for the wage disparity, and m…
discussed
Cited "see"
George Alejandro Hernandez v. The People of the State of California
See Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 27 || in federal court, and the Supreme Court has held that ‘§ 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity[.]’” (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 28 || (2000). 1 In light of the foregoing, any claims petitioner may be seeking to raise 2 challenging the conditions of his confinement in these habeas proceedings are 3 subject to dismissal. 4 III.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Joshua Jackson
“Indian country” includes “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation.” 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (a). 1 Jackson argues the assault occurred on land that Congress conveyed to the Minneapolis, Red Lake and Manitoba Railway Company in a 1905 statute that diminished the Red Lake Reservation (“the 1905 Act”), depriving the district *672 court of subject matter jurisdiction because “the situs of the offenses is no longer a p…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Post University, Inc.
See Grady v. Affil iated Cent., Inc., 130 F.3d 553, 560 (2d Cir.1997). 52 As the Second Circuit explained in Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000): The premise underlying this inference is that if the person who fires an employee is the same person that hired him, one cannot logically impute to that person an invidious intent to discriminate against the employee.
discussed
Cited "see"
Opinion No. (2007)
See Solem, 465 U.S. at 472 ("Where non-Indian settlers flooded into the opened portion of the reservation and the area has long since lost its Indian character, we have acknowledged that de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred.") Additional considerations in determining whether the Reservation has been diminished are stated in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Gaffey, 188 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1261 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Bittick v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
See Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Owner-Operator Independent Driver Ass'n v. Usis Commercial Services, Inc.
See Washington v. CSC Credit Services Inc., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000); In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation, 211 F.R.D. 328, 339 (N.D.Ill.2002); Mangio v. Equifax, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 283, 285 (S.D.Fla.1995); Kekich v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 64 F.R.D. 660, 668 (W.D.Pa.1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Townsend v. Exchange Insurance
See Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mangaroo v. BOUNDLESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
See Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000) If the plaintiff meets this burden, thé employer must articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.
discussed
Cited "see"
Elliott v. British Tourist Authority
See Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000) (finding inference of discrimination where plaintiffs duties were transferred to employees eighteen and twenty-five years younger than him); see also O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert F. Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Board of Education, Body Corporate Cromwell Board of Education Body Corporate
See Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 *102 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000); Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Penberg v. HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT
Barbosa v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc., 716 F.Supp.2d 210, 215 (S.D.N.Y.2010); see also Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2718 , 147 L.Ed.2d 983 (2000); Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs.Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir.1994); accord McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 (explaining that a prima facie case is made out under Title VII “by showing (i) that [plaintiff] belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) tha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Amunrud v. Board of Appeals
See also Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 1999) (the pursuit of profession or occupation is a protected liberty interest that extends across a broad range of lawful occupations), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 (2000); Cornwell v. Cal. Bd. of Barbering & Cosmetology, 962 F. Supp. 1260, 1271 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Amunrud v. Board of Appeals
See also Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir.1999), (the pursuit of profession or occupation is a protected liberty interest that extends across a broad range of lawful occupations), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2717 , 147 L.Ed.2d 982 (2000); Cornwell v. Cal. Bd. of Barbering & Cosmetology, 962 F.Supp. 1260, 1271 (1997) ("`[t]he right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the "liberty" and "property" concepts'" of the federal constitution (quoting Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ECOGEN, LLC v. Town of Italy
Instead, “the proper inquiry is concerned with the existence of a conceivably rational basis, not whether that basis was actually considered by the legislative body.” Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 922 (11th Cir.1995) (citation omitted); see also Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1031 (9th Cir.1999) (“we do not require that the government’s action actually advance its stated purposes, but merely look to see whether the government could have had a legitimate reason for acting as it did”), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1261 , 120 S.Ct. 2717 , 147 L.Ed.2d 982 (2000); Bituminous Mater…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meyerson v. Prime Realty Services, LLC
The primary limitation is contained in the federal 1974 Privacy Act, which requires that any agency requesting disclosure of a SSN must “inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it” (Pub L 93-579, § 7, 88 Stat 1909). 2 It is noteworthy that, even when government demands the information, a citizen may assert a claim that the government lacks sufficient need to justify seeking the private information (see, for example, Russell v Board of Plumbing Examiners of County …
Glover
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-8576.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 26, 2000.
530 U.S. 1261
Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (1) · S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.