green
Positive treatment
Trending · 310 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 ·
…before addressing the merits of this case, we must first determine whether the controversy has become moot.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Ralston
o determine the common usage or ordinary meaning of a term, courts often turn to dictionary definitions for guidance.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Danny J. McClure v. JPMorgan Chase Bank as Independent of the Estate of Vivienne Redlich
before addressing the merits of this case, we must first determine whether the controversy has become moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Danny J. McClure v. JPMorgan Chase Bank as Independent of the Estate of Vivienne Redlich
before addressing the merits of this case, we must first determine whether the controversy has become moot.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jordan v. Helix Energy Solutions Grp., Inc.
See 29 C.F.R. § 541.708 . "[T]he general rule [is] that the application of an exemption under the [FLSA] is a matter of affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof." Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188 , 94 S.Ct. 2223 , 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). "[T]he ultimate determination of whether an employer qualifies for an exemption under the FLSA is a question of law." Singer v. City of Waco, Texas , 324 F.3d 813 , 818 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004) (citing Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 203 F.3d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2001), rev’d on other grounds, 536 U.S. 129 , 122 S.Ct. 1993 , 153 L.Ed.2d 132 (2002); Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mobile Medical International Corp. v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003), ("the Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction .... ”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Reilly v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 643, 650 (2010) ("This court also lacks, for that matter, jurisdiction over these claims under the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 , et seq., as jurisdiction over claims relying upon that statute lies solely in the district courts.’’) (footnote omitted). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Reilly v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 , 1315 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Define, 970 F.2d at 894 (section 1552 “does not mandate pay at all”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Banerjee v. States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction ----” (citing Murphy v. United States, 993 F.2d at 874 )), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Polk v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
McClure v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
(2×)
See Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Barber, 111 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tex.2003) (concluding constitutional questions were not moot before addressing merits of the petitioner’s claims), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004); Bd. of Adjustment v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex.2002) (“Before addressing the merits of this case, we must first determine whether the controversy has become moot.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. v. United States
L-3’s Cause of Action Accrued When the IG Report Was Issued A claim first accrues when “all the events which fix the government’s alleged liability have occurred and the plaintiff was or should have been aware of their existence.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004) (quoting Nager Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
O'BRIEN v. Town of Agawam
Compare, e.g., Herman v. Fabri-Centers of America, Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 589 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, Fabri-Centers of America, Inc. v. Chao, 537 U.S. 1245 , 123 S.Ct. 1353 , 155 L.Ed.2d 219 (2003) (concluding that “ § 207(h)(2) should be interpreted to include a workweek or work period restriction”), and Howard v. City of Springfield, 274 F.3d 1141, 1148-49 (7th Cir.2001) (refusing to permit application of cumulative credits based, in part, on concern that employers might manipulate overtime payments to take advantage of economic conditions), with Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kosmo v. United States
In a Tucker Act suit, claim first accrues within the meaning of the statute of limitations “when all the events have occurred which fix the liability of the Government and entitle the [Plaintiff] to institute an action.” Brighton Village Assocs. v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556, 557 (Fed.Cir.1988)); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Coil
See, e.g., Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 817-18 (5th Cir.2003), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 67 Fed.Appx. 250 (5th Cir.2003), and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 1410, 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004); United States v. Rodriguez-Montelongo, 263 F.3d 429, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2001); Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 971 , 121 S.Ct. 1601 , 149 L.Ed.2d 468 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
“The FLSA requires any employee working over 40 hours in a week to be paid overtime, premium compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their ‘regular rate’ of pay.” York v. City of Wichita Falls, 48 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir.1995) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1)); see also Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 818 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 1410, 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barber
v.
Texas Department of Transportation
v.
Texas Department of Transportation
No. 03-510.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2) · M.D. Florida (1)
Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.