green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1981 ·
…vjindication of federal civil rights ... is peculiarly subject to federal substantive law.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Philadelphia Citizens In Action v. Richard Schweiker
(2×)
But see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1979) (reaching opposite conclusion), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Philadelphia Citizens in Action v. Schweiker
(2×)
But see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1979) (reaching opposite conclusion), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
John Joseph Garrick, Jr. v. City and County of Denver Manager of Safety, Daniel P. Cronin Chief of Police, Arthur G. Dill, Alan D. Jones
(2×)
vjindication of federal civil rights ... is peculiarly subject to federal substantive law.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Webster
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 92 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3rd Cir.1978); United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285, 291 (5th Cir.1976); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1355 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2174 , 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Janet Scott-Harris v. City of Fall River, Janet Scott-Harris v. City of Fall River
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 89 (1st Cir.1979) (discussing causation in the context of section 1983), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); see also O’Brien v. Papa Gino's of Am., Inc., 780 F.2d 1067, 1072 (1st Cir.1986). 17 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan
(2×)
See U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir.1979) (good cause more easily found as to 30-day waiting period), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); Comment, 1980 B.Y.U.L.Rev., at 97 (30-day waiting period “in no way relates to the notice and comment requirement, but the federal courts have not always been careful to maintain the distinction”); G.
discussed
Cited "see"
Riverbend Farms, Inc., a California Corporation Sequoia Orange Co. Exeter Orange Co., a California Corporation v. Edward R. Madigan, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Riverbend Farms, Inc., a California Corporation Sunny Cove Citrus Association, a California Cooperative Corporation Belridge Packing Co., a California Corporation Sequoia Orange Company, Inc., a California Corporation and Exeter Orange Company, Inc., a California Corporation v. Edward R. Madigan, Secty Dept. Of Agriculture
(2×)
See U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir.1979) (good cause more easily found as to 30-day waiting period), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); Comment, 1980 B.Y.U.L.Rev., at 97 (30-day waiting period "in no way relates to the notice and comment requirement, but the federal courts have not always been careful to maintain the distinction"); G.
discussed
Cited "see"
Doucette v. Sullivan
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 635 F.2d 915, 920 (1st Cir.), remanded, 604 F.2d 80 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 639 F.Supp. 1216, 1219 (D.Me.1986), aff'd sub nom., Sierra Club v. Secretary of Army, 820 F.2d 513 (1st Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 8Q, 97 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reginald Michaud v. Kenneth Michaud
(2×)
Fennel v. TLB Kent Co., 865 F.2d 498 (2d Cir.1989); see Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 97 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980), we note that under Maine law we would apparently reach a similar result.
discussed
Cited "see"
National Bank of Fairhaven v. United States
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 89 (1st Cir.1979) (interpreting § 1983), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crozier v. State
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coy v. Simpson Marine Safety Equipment, Inc.
(2×)
See S.E.C. v. MacDonald, 699 F.2d 47, 51-52 (1st Cir.1983), Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 93-94 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 422, prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,952 Sharon Coy, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Coy v. Simpson Marine Safety Equipment, Inc. D/B/A Simpson Sports
(2×)
See S.E.C. v. MacDonald, 699 F.2d 47, 51-52 (1st Cir.1983), Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 93-94 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diggs v. Lyons Et Al.
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (CA1 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (finding it unnecessary to resolve the question).
discussed
Cited "see"
Humphries v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 97 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. White
(2×)
See generally Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 91 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980). .
cited
Cited "see"
Wisconsin Electric Power Company v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin Electric Power Company v. Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
See id. 605 F.2d at 290-91 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Toussaint v. Rushen
(2×)
See, generally, Furtado v. Bishop (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 80, 88 , cert. denied, (1980) 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 ; Adams v. Carlson (7th Cir.1973) 488 F.2d 619, 635-36 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Toussaint v. Rushen
(2×)
See, generally, Furtado v. Bishop (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 80, 88 , cert. denied, (1980) 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 ; Adams v. Carlson (7th Cir. 1973) 488 F.2d 619, 635-36 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Kincaid v. Rusk
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 98 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980). 28 Nevertheless, Kincaid did establish that his rights were violated by Rusk's enforcement of restrictive policies governing access to reading material, and, thus, he is entitled to an award of nominal damages in the sum of one dollar.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kincaid v. Rusk
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 98 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. Appeal of United States of America
(2×)
Accord, United States Steel Corp. v. E.P.A., 605 F.2d 283, 293 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
examined
Cited "see"
Southern Stone Company, Inc. v. Sam Singer and Thomas D. Moore
(4×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 91 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (deceased attorney’s affidavit of his conversation with defendant trustworthy and admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5) in part because affiant not plaintiffs attorney, not connected with plaintiffs suit other than through submission of affidavit, and thus disinterested party as to affidavit’s subject matter).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Howard T. Winter, United States of America v. Melvin Goldenberg, United States of America v. Elliot Paul Price, United States of America v. James Demetri, United States of America v. Charles Demetri, United States of America v. James Martorano
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Winter
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colortronic Reinhard & Co. v. Plastic Controls, Inc.
(2×)
See Furtado v. Bishop, 1 Cir., 1979, 604 F.2d 80, 98 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. Casey
(2×)
See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 376 , 96 S.Ct. 598, 606 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) and Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 89 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980). 4 *120 In a recent decision, Martinez v. State of Cal., 444 U.S. 277 , 100 S.Ct. 553 , 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State’s demurrer to a § 1983 claim in which affirmative state action — the parole release of a “mentally disordered sex offender not amenable to treatment”, Martinez v. State of Cal., 85 Cal.App.3d 430 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 519, 522 (1978) …
discussed
Cited "see"
Abolghasen Osee Yassini, and Masoud Mahdjoubi v. David Crosland, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See generally United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of the Town of Cumberland
(4×)
See, e.g., Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 97 (1st Cir.1979) (holding that a federal rule should govern the issue of prejudgment interest in § 1983 actions), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Silva v. University of New Hampshire
(2×)
See also Pittsley v. Warish, 927 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir.) (substantive due process “imposes limits on what a state may do regardless of what procedural protection is provided”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 879 , 112 S.Ct. 226 , 116 L.Ed.2d 183 (1991). [SJubstantive due process protects individuals against state actions which are “arbitrary and capricious,” Newman [v. Commonwealth of Mass.], 884 F.2d [19,] 25 [ (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1078 , 110 S.Ct. 1132 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1990) ], or those which run counter to “the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McCann v. Ruiz
(2×)
As a result, “it is only when some basic and fundamental principle has been transgressed that ‘the constitutional line has been crossed.’ ” Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 754 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033 , 94 S.Ct. 462 , 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973) (emphasis added)); see also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 , 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2341 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (plurality opinion) (citation omitted) Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 95 (1st Cir.1979), cer…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lionel Aubin v. Stanley Fudala
(2×)
See Hobart v. O’Brien, 243 F.2d 735, 745 (1st Cir.) (diversity case), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 830 , 78 S.Ct. 42 , 2 L.Ed.2d 42 (1957); Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co., 717 F.2d 683 , 692 n. 13 (2d Cir.1983) (state law governs award of prejudgment interest on pendent state law claims even if federal claims provide basis for jurisdiction); compare Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 97 (1st Cir.1979) (federal rule governs award of prejudgment interest on federal claims in § 1983 suit), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stanley Christmas v. Lolita Sanders
(2×)
See, e.g., Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 93-94 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (court declines to decide whether,' in civil action, Rule 403 grants district judge discretion to exclude prior felony conviction otherwise admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) because exclusion under Rule 609(a)(1) was harmless error where judge admitted five other prior convictions of plaintiff and it was clear to the jury that plaintiff was a prison inmate; thus, defendant’s attack on plaintiff’s credibility could not have been impaired by the exclusion of this mer…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chang v. University of Rhode Island
(2×)
See also Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 97-98 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); Citizens Savings Bank v. Bell, 605 F.Supp. 1033, 1047 (D.R.I.1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dilger
See also State v. Helenbolt, 280 N.W.2d 631 (Minn.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 709 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schiller v. Strangis
(2×)
See also Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 95-96 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (claim of cruel and unusual punishment by prison officials in which trial court used Johnson formulation during jury instructions rather than requiring a finding that force used was “shocking or violative of universal standards of decency”; instruction to jury held to be not plain error).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Muscato
(2×)
See, e.g., Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 93 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 *980 U.S. 1035, 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980); United States v. Iaconetti, 540 F.2d 574, 578 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1041 , 97 S.Ct. 739 , 50 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3rd Cir. 1978); United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Seabrook, Texas v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
Compare United States Steel Corp. v. USEPA, 595 F.2d 207, 213-15 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that, notwithstanding the statutory deadlines, EPA should have complied with the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act), clariRed on other grounds, 598 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1979), and Sharon Steel Corp. v. EPA, 597 F.2d 377, 379-81 (3d Cir. 1979) (same), with United States Steel Corp. v. USEPA, 605 F.2d 283, 286-91 (7th Cir. 1979) (contra), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Costle
(2×)
See also U.S. Steel Corp. v. USEPA, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980), (dissenting opinion from denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kathleen McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc.
(2×)
Compare Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 98 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035 , 100 S.Ct. 710 , 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (fee may not be calculated merely by halving dollar recovery).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bishop
v.
Furtado
v.
Furtado
No. 79-666.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 1980.
444 U.S. 1035
Cited by 141 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (2)
C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.