Zuckerman v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2010). · Go Syfert
Zuckerman v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“although a strategic reason may not be necessary for failing to make a motion that has no merit, it is certainly necessary when counsel fails to make a meritorious motion.”
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David Heath v. Jean Hill (ca9, 2010-09-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) David Heath v. Jean Hill
9th Cir. · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
although a strategic reason may not be necessary for failing to make a motion that has no merit, it is certainly necessary when counsel fails to make a meritorious motion.
discussed Cited "see" Formella v. United States Department of Labor
7th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 *389 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.2009) (intracompany complaints are covered by "filed any complaint” language of Fair Labor Standards Act's anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3), but such complaints must be in writing in order to be deemed "filed”), reh’g en banc denied over dissent, 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1890 , 176 L.Ed.2d 361 (2010). 2 .
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. AH Cornell and Son, Inc. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834, 838, 840 (7th Cir.2009) (holding that written, but not oral, internal complaints are protected based on the inclusion of the verb "filed"), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1890 , 176 L.Ed.2d 361 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Paul Zuckerman
v.
United States
No. 09-8925.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 22, 2010.
176 L. Ed. 2d 361

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 12, 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.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.