green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Sackett v. ITC^ DELTACOM, INC.
See Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 670 (1st Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Zimmermann v. Assocs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wei Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., Delaware Corporation McMi Food Company, a Texas Corporation Harry Lees, a Natural Person
See Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, Inc., 233 F.3d 655, 673 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001) (finding that a plaintiffs termination on the basis of her sex was “more reprehensible than would appear in a case involving economic harms only”).
cited
Cited "see"
Cousin v. Sofono, Inc.
See Romano v. U-Haul Int'l, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc.
See Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 665 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001). “[T]he giving of [a jury] instruction is reversible error only if it (1) was misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law, and (2) adversely affected the objecting party’s substantial rights.” Rodowicz, 279 F.3d at 42 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Smith
See also Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 671 (1st Cir.2000), (applying same principle, in interpreting jury award of $15,000 in so-called nominal damages for civil rights violation as a compensatory damage award), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Creem v. Cicero, 12 ConmApp. 607, 533 A.2d 234, 236 (1987) (“ ‘Generally, nominal damages are fixed without regard to the extent of harm done and are assessed in some trifling or trivial amount’ ”) (citation omitted); The Toledo Group, Inc. v. Benton Indus., Inc., 87 Ohio App.3d 798 , 623 N.E.2d 205, 2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Juniper v. Com.
FACTS AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW Under well-settled principles of appellate review, we consider the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court. 2 Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307 , 313, 541 S.E.2d 872 , 877, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1043 , 122 S.Ct. 621 , 151 L.Ed.2d 542 (2001); see also Lovitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 497 , 502, 537 S.E.2d 866 , 870 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Medcalf v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania
See, e.g., Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 670 (1st Cir. 2000) cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376 , 385 (2d Cir.2001); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 , 516 (9th Cir.2000); Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 188 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
“An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS once that agency has prepared an EA is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will be set aside only if it is ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ ” Id. at 1070 ; see also Ka Mákani, 295 F.3d at 959 (because NEPA does not contain a separate provision for judicial review, courts review an agency’s compliance with NEPA under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)). *1129 “The arbitrary and capricious standard requires a court to ensure that an agency has taken the requisite ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its proposed action,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Golson v. Green Tree Financial Servicing Corp.
See e.g., Romano v. U-Haul, Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 670 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 , 516 (9th Cir. 2000); Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 188 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wetlands Action Network
v.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
v.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
No. 00-1692.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 2001.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.