green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.2 score
“because the california supreme court has not addressed this question, our task is to predict how the highest state court would decide the issue using intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidance.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Pierre v. JC PENNEY CO., INC.
See Phillip v. University of Rochester, 316 F.3d 291, 292 (2d Cir. 2003); Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2902 , 159 L.Ed.2d 827 (2004) (en banc decision following Phillip rule and vacating its earlier decision requiring state action); but see Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 266 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017 , 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002) (requiring state action for purposes of equal benefit clause); Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 799 (3d Cir. 2001) (same).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc.
because the california supreme court has not addressed this question, our task is to predict how the highest state court would decide the issue using intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidance.
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Macy
See Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114 , 1131 n. 8 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017 , 122 S.Ct. 1607 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002); see also Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners’ Assn. v. Nelson, 25 Cal.App.4th 1, 5-7 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 316 (Cal.App.1994) ("it clearly, was the intent of the Legislature, in adopting the 1993 amendments [to FEHA], to conform California law on the subject of fair housing to the Federal Fair Housing Act.”). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Shawn Pratt v. Charles Greiner
See Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that whether the period during which a petitioner may pursue certiorari on state collateral motions tolls AEDPA’s statute of limitations is a question of law to be reviewed de novo), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafael Rodriguez v. Floyd Bennett, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility
See generally Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002); Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17-18 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S.Ct. 104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 63 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resnik v. Swartz
See Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002) (stating the principle that, when particular language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another, it is generally presumed that the omission is intentional); West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Cmty. Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1988) (same); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir.1993) (applying a rule of statutory construction to interpret an administrative regulation); 1A Norman J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Resnik v. Swartz
See Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002) (stating the principle that, when particular language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another, it is generally presumed that the omission is intentional); West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Cmty. Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1988) (same); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Commissioner, 986 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir.1993) (applying a rule of statutory construction to interpret an administrative regulation); 1A Norman J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bishop v. TOYS\ R\" US-NY LLC"
Instead, the relationship is based on a single discrete transaction — the purchase of goods.” Arguello, 330 F.3d at 360 (footnote omitted); see also, e.g., Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 266 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir.2001) (“While there is scant precedent, courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that once the purchase is completed, no contractual relationship remains.”) (citations omitted), cert, denied, 535 U.S. 1017 , 122 S.Ct. 1606 , 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002); Garrett v. Tandy Corp., 295 F.3d 94 , 101 (1st Cir.2002) (dismissing section 1981 claim where “the appellan…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Lakewood
v.
Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach
v.
Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach
01-1201.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 22, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (1)
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
v.
FAIR HOUSING FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH.
No. 01-1201.
Supreme Court of the United States.
April 22, 2002.
1
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 272 F. 3d 1114.