green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorothy Buchhagen v. ICF International, Inc.
See Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 385 (4th Cir.) (“Bond’s allegations, which largely include the actions taken against her in response to the concerns regarding her performance, fall well short of alleging an abusive working environment.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 398 , 181 L.Ed.2d 255 (2011); EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 315 (4th Cir.2008) (“Workplaces are not always harmonious locales, and even incidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or *220 wounded feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Minoo Kobraei v. Keith Alexander
See, e.g., Chacho v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 513 (4th Cir.2005). “[A] failure by the plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies concerning a Title VII claim deprives the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.” Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir.2009); see Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Bonds v. Sebelius, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 398 , 181 L.Ed.2d 255 (2011); Davis v. N.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Patrice Tavernier v. Health Management Associates
See Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 386 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 398 , 181 L.Ed.2d 255 (2011); DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 299 (4th Cir.1998) (“[I]t is not our province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Lance James v. Burl Cain, Warden
See Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 393 (5th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 397 , 181 L.Ed.2d 255 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction
Furthermore, notwithstanding the third habeas court’s ruling, we have little doubt that the petitioner’s counsel will make effective use of the recording at a new trial, if the state elects to retry the petitioner, both to impeach Morrissey’s credibility and to bolster the petitioner’s claim that the burn time estimates provided by DeHaan and Kelder prove that it was temporally impossible for the petitioner to have committed the crimes of which he was convicted because the testimony of DeHaan, Kelder and Martin provides him with a complete and compelling alibi. 86 For present purposes,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alex Blueford
v.
Arkansas
v.
Arkansas
No. 10-1320.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 2011.
181 L. Ed. 2d 255
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted.
Same case below, 2011 Ark. 8, 370 S.W.3d 496.