Schultz v. Halpin, 176 L. Ed. 2d 211 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Schultz v. Halpin, 176 L. Ed. 2d 211 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Diane Williams v. Cyberonics Inc (ca3, 2010-07-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Diane Williams v. Cyberonics Inc
3rd Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 255 (3d Cir.2009), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1734 , 176 L.Ed.2d 211 (2010) (stating that the malfunction theory permits a plaintiff to base a products liability claim on “circumstantial evidence of a manufacturing defect.”).
discussed Cited "see" Adams v. Morris
D. Maryland · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F.Supp.2d 567, 585 (D.Md.2008), rev’d on other grounds, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir.2009), cert. granted — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1737 , 176 L.Ed.2d 211 (2010) (comparing Maryland and federal standards).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Guerrero v. Holder
7th Cir. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, 707 (6th Cir.2010) (applying categorical approach to hold that repeal of § 212(c) is not impermissibly retroactive), Ferguson v. Att’y Gen., 563 F.3d 1254, 1271 (11th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1735 , 176 L.Ed.2d 211 (2010) (same); Montenegro, 355 F.3d at 1037 (same); Dias v. INS, 311 F.3d 456, 458 (1st Cir.2002) (same); Amendariz-Montoya v. Sonchilc, 291 F.3d 1116 , 1121— 22 (9th Cir.2002) (same), with Lovan v. Holder, 574 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir.2009) (applying categorical approach to hold that repeal of § 212(c) is impe…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc., 561 F.3d 233 (3d Cir.2009), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1734 , 176 L.Ed.2d 211 (2010) (holding that Vaccine Act preempts design defect claims without a determination of whether the vaccine is unavoidably unsafe); [4] Sykes v. *886 Glaxo-SmithKline, 484 F.Supp.2d 289 (E.D.Pa.2007) (same); Blackmon v. American Home Prods.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter J. Schultz
v.
Francis Halpin
No. 09-8375.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 8, 2010.
176 L. Ed. 2d 211
Published

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.