green
Positive treatment
10.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Barlow
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
For this step to be satisfied, the court must find that the legal parent's "own actions led to the creation of [a] parental bond" between the third party and the child, J.C. v. C.T., 184 Misc.2d 935 , 711 N.Y.S.2d 295, 299 (Fam.Ct.2000), and that at the time the bond formed, the legal parent intended it to be permanent, as opposed to temporary, however long. [8] In other words, the legal parent must have consented to and fostered the petitioner's formation and establishment of a parental relationship with the child. [9] See V.C., 163 N.J. 200 , 748 A.2d 539, 552 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. …
examined
Cited "see"
Northwest Bergen County Utilities Authority v. Kathleen A. Donovan (075060)
(4×)
See O’Connell v. State, 171 N.J. 484, 488 (2002) (“Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature’s intent from the statute’s plain meaning.” (citing V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 217 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S. Ct. 302 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970)
(2×)
See V.C. v. 163 N.J. 200 , 228, 748 A.2d 539 (“visitation rights are almost invariably granted to the non-custodial parent”), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 302 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970)
(2×)
See V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 228 (“visitation rights are almost invariably granted to the non-custodial parent”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S. Ct. 302 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
S.M. v. K.M.
(2×)
See V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 229 , (explaining that permanent denial of visitation is such an "extraordinary proscription that it should be invoked only in those exceptional cases where it clearly and convincingly appears that the granting of visitation will cause physical or emotional harm to the children or where it is demonstrated that the parent is unfit[]"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S. Ct. 302 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
S.M. v. K.M.
(2×)
See V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 229 , 748 A.2d 539 , (explaining that permanent denial of visitation is such an “extraordinary proscription that it should be invoked only in those exceptional cases where it clearly and convincingly appears that the granting of visitation will cause physical or emotional harm to the children or where it is demonstrated that the parent is unfit[]”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 302 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000); see also, N.J.
cited
Cited "see"
Peacock v. City of Murphy Texas
See Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754-55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 303 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mangrum v. Republic Industries, Inc.
See, Madray v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1376 (S.D.Fla.1998) (a generalized fear is insufficient to justify failure to follow an employer’s anti-harassment policy), aff'd, 208 F.3d at 1293 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 303 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000); Barrett v. Applied Radiant Energy Corp., 240 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir.2001) (“Allowing subjective fears to vitiate an employee’s reporting requirement would completely undermine Title VIPs basic policy ‘of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees.’”).
cited
Cited "see"
GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO. v. Sherry Brooke Revocable Trust
See Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 303 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000) (citing Boyd v. State Farm Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Adams v. America Guarantee & Liability Insurance
See Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1238-39 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 302 , 148 L.Ed.2d 242 (2000); Adler, 144 F.3d at 679 (stating “[a]rguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived”); Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
OJ of Stillwater v. Visiontrade AG
See Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc. , 203 F.3d 1202, 1212 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , __ U.S. __, 121 S. Ct. 302 (2000). -7- Visiontrade’s second claim seeks to void Bradley’s purchase of OJ’s assets as a fraudulent conveyance.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayers v. Emigrant Bancorp, Inc.
See also, e.g., James v. Newsweek, Inc., No. 99-9280, 213 F.3d 626 (table), 2000 WL 536409 at *1 (2d Cir. May 2, 2000) (Plaintiffs "veiled and ambiguous remark” to her supervisor that she "did not believe 'her evaluation was fair' and that she was ‘going to seek justice' ” was "insufficient to support the inference that she was complaining about alleged discrimination.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 303 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000); Braid v. MJ Peterson Corp., No. 99-7890, 208 F.3d 202 (table), 2000 WL 268568 at *1 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2000) (No prima facie case of retaliation wher…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Pillow
See Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532-33 (5th Cir.1996); see also Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754-55 (5th Cir.) (conelusory allegations and a mere scintilla of evidence are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 303 , 148 L.Ed.2d 243 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sharp v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.)
See, e.g., Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1236 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 , 121 S.Ct. 302 , 148 L.Ed.2d 242 (2000); Lawrence Nat’l Bank v. Edmonds (In re Edmonds), 924 F.2d 176 , 180 (10th Cir.1991) (addressing the specificity of fraud allegations required to state a claim for revocation of discharge based on debtor’s fraud); In re Exabyte Corp. Securities Litigation, 823 F.Supp. 866, 869 (D.Colo.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.
“The pleadings must state precisely the time, place, and nature of the misleading statements, misrepresentations, and specific acts of fraud.” Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied sub nom Payne v. Kaplan, 516 U.S. 810 , 116 5.Ct. 58, 133 L.Ed.2d 21 (1995); see also Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1236 (10th Cir.) (complaint alleging fraud must “set forth the time, place and contents of the false representation, the identity of the party making the false statements and the consequences thereof.”) (internal quotes omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
M. J. B.
v.
V. C.
v.
V. C.
No. 00-41.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 2000.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.