green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cardegna v. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.
The court concluded that because the plaintiffs admitted assenting to the agreements, the challenge to the legality of the underlying contract constituted a "challenge [to] the substance, rather than the existence, of the loan agreements." Id. at 490; accord Furgason v. McKenzie Check Advance of Indiana Inc., No. IP00-121-C H/G, 2001 WL 238129 (S.D.Ind.
discussed
Cited "see"
Boeing Co. v. United States
See Brown v. SM, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 970 , 122 S.Ct. 1436 , 152 L.Ed.2d 380 (2002); Celeritas Tech., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1106 , 119 S.Ct. 874 , 142 L.Ed.2d 774 (1999); Structural Rubber Prods.
discussed
Cited "see"
LILLIAN PEBBLES MORRISON v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., MARK F. SHANKLE, SR. v. PEP BOYS — MANNY, MOE & JACK, INC.
(2×)
See Burden v. Check into Cash of Ky., LLC, 267 F.3d 483, 492 (6th Cir.2001) ("As to the potentially burdensome costs of arbitration, the party resisting arbitration has the burden of showing the likelihood that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.'') (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 970 , 122 S.Ct. 1436 , 152 L.Ed.2d 380 (2002). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp.
See Sandisk Corp. v. Lexar Media, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1336 (N.D.Cal.2000) (Breyer, J.) (observing that there can be no anticipation of a patent “[ujnless all the elements are found in a single piece of prior art in exactly the same situation and united the same way to perform the identical function”); see also Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001) (“To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.”), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 970 , 122 S.Ct. 1436 , 152 L.Ed.2d 380 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniel E. Abbey v. Anthony J. Principi
Athough, where Congress has by statute directly addressed an issue, the reviewing court “ ‘must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress’ ”, Cottle, supra (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 ); see also Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 , *290 217-18, 122 S.Ct. 1265 , 152 L.Ed.2d 380 (2002), where a statute is ambiguous, “interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran’s favor.” Brown, 513 U.S. at 118 , 115 S.Ct. 552 ; see also Allen (Alfred) v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc) (applying Brown v. Gardner principle to rule in ap…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fazio v. LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); see also Burden v. Check Into Cash of Kentucky, LLC, 267 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 970 , 122 S.Ct. 1436 , 152 L.Ed.2d 380 (2002); Ferro, 142 F.3d at 931, 933 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burden
v.
Check Into Cash of Kentucky, LLC
v.
Check Into Cash of Kentucky, LLC
01-1078.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 1, 2002.
Published
BURDEN ET AL.
v.
CHECK INTO CASH OF KENTUCKY, LLC, ET AL.
No. 01-1078.
Supreme Court of the United States.
April 1, 2002.
1
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 267 F. 3d 483.