green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.1 score
“abiding by another canon of statutory construction, where congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclu…”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cardona
abiding by another canon of statutory construction, where congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclu…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sarah Cox v. B. Alan Sugg, President of the University of Arkansas, in His Official and Individual Capacities, University of Arkansas
The institution’s “asserted failure to promulgate and publicize an effective policy and grievance procedure for sexual harassment claims” is not enough to satisfy this rigorous standard. 524 U.S. at 290-92 , 118 S.Ct. 1989 ; see Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568 , 575-76 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1054 , 122 S.Ct. 1910 , 152 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Gillespie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
See Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 106 (1st Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 , 122 S.Ct. 1909 , 152 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Brochu v. Ortho Pharm.
cited
Cited "see"
Rosalyn Motley v. United States
See McCoy v. United States, 264 F.3d 792, 794 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1909 , 152 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002), citing Walker v. United States, 176 F.3d 437, 438 (8th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Armstrong v. Astrue
As the statutory language makes plain, a party cannot bring a lawsuit under the FTCA, without first exhausting his or her administrative remedies by presenting a written claim for relief to “the appropriate Federal agency.” See, Duncan v. Department of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.2002)(“Although the Federal Tort Claims Act creates several exceptions to the United States’ sovereign immunity, it requires the claimant to first ‘present[] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.’ ”), quoting Title U.S.C. § 2675(a); see also, McCoy v. United States, 264 F.3d 792, 794 (8th C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meagher v. Heggemeier
As the statutory language makes clear, a party cannot bring a lawsuit under the FTCA, without first exhausting his or her administrative remedies by presenting a written claim for relief to “the appropriate Federal agency.” See, Duncan v. Depart *1095 ment of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.2002)(“Although the Federal Tort Claims Act creates several exceptions to the United States’ sovereign immunity, it requires the claimant to first ‘present! ] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.’ ”), quoting Title U.S.C. § 2675(a); see also, McCoy v. United States, 264 F.3d 792, 79…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Charter Communications, Inc., Securities Litigation, Stoneridge Investment Partners, Lls v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc Motorola, Inc.
See, e.g., Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568 , 575 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1054 , 122 S.Ct. 1910 , 152 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Missouri River Services, Inc.
v.
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
v.
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
01-1149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Florida (1)
MISSOURI RIVER SERVICES, INC.
v.
OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA.
No. 01-1149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
1
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 267 F. 3d 848.