green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Burgess v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific
See Casumpang v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142, 269 F.3d 1042 , 1058 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1078 , 122 S.Ct. 1961 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002). 1 Thus, the district court did not err in its summary judgment ruling.
cited
Cited "see"
Wessel v. Glendening
See Thompson v. Colorado, 278 F.3d 1020, 1033 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Wessel v. Glendening
See Thompson v. Colorado, 278 F.3d 1020, 1033 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
El Puerto De Liverpool, S.A. De C v. v. Servi Mundo Llantero S.A. De C.V.
(2×)
El Puerto de Liverpool, S.A. de C.V. v. Servi Mundi Llanter S.A. de CV, 82 S.W.3d 622 , 637 - 38 (Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. h.); see Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707, 720 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), writ denied, Daimler-Chrysler Aktiengesllschaft, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Gettysburg v. United States
See, e.g., Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (cognizable property interest is a requirement for asserting an action for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Moden v. United States
See, e.g., Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordan Ex Rel. Jordan v. Deery
(2×)
See, e.g., Thompson v. Colorado, 278 F.3d 1020, 1032 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) (recognizing that Helminski protects a category of rights required to be given some degree of accommodation under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause while also recognizing that the due process clause does not contain the general mandate of Title II of the ADA); Green, 730 A.2d at 233 n. 14 (assuming without deciding that the Helminski test survived the enactment of the ADA); Matthew A. Sokol, Cary v. Oneok, Inc.: Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Pl…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Magic Chef Co.
v.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
v.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
01-1044.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 20, 2002.
Published
MAGIC CHEF CO.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
No. 01-1044.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 20, 2002.
1
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264 F. 3d 1144.