green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. City of Jackson MS
(2×)
See Adams v. Fla. Power Corp., 255 F.3d 1322 , 1325-26 (11th Cir.) (holding that disparate impact claims may not be brought under the ADEA, in part because “the history of the ADEA differs from the legislative history of Title VII, which the Supreme Court in Griggs relied on to find a cause of action for disparate impact”), cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1054 , 122 S.Ct. 643 , 151 L.Ed.2d 561 (2001), cert. dismissed, 535 U.S. 228 , 122 S.Ct. 1290 , 152 L.Ed.2d 345 (2002); Mullin, 164 F.3d at 703 (“Congress never intended to make a disparate impact cause of action available under the ADEA.”); …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Murray
v.
Restor Telephone Products Dennis v. Dennis
v.
Restor Telephone Products Dennis v. Dennis
No. 01-6577; No. 01-6629.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 3, 2001.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir.; and
Ct. App. S. C. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until December 26, 2001, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.