green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Maria P.
(2×)
See Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 30 , 410 A.2d 1052 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S.Ct. 52 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wagner v. Wagner
(2×)
See Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 30 , 410 A.2d 1052 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S.Ct. 52 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaither v. Gaither
(2×)
See Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20 , 410 A.2d 1052, 1060 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S.Ct. 52 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 , reh’g denied 449 U.S. 1028 , 101 S.Ct. 601 , 66 L.Ed.2d 491 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tidewater/Havre De Grace, Inc. v. Mayor of Havre De Grace
(2×)
See also Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 27 , 410 A.2d 1052, 1056 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S.Ct. 52 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 , reh’g denied, 449 U.S. 1028 , 101 S.Ct. 601 , 66 L.Ed.2d 491 (1980). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County
(2×)
A regulation does not “go too far” unless it either “compel[s] the property owner to suffer a physical ‘invasion’ of his property,” or “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Id. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 2893 , 120 L.Ed.2d at 812-13 ; see also Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 34 , 410 A.2d 1052 (1980) (“To constitute a taking in the • constitutional sense, so that the State must pay compensation, the state action must deprive the owner of all beneficial use of the property.”), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S.Ct. 52 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman
(2×)
See, e.g., *415 Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 27 , 410 A.2d 1052 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807 , 101 S. Ct. 52 , 66 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). State Water Control Board, an Agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland (Intervenor-Deft.). United States of America v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland. State Water Control Board v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland. United States of America v. District of Columbia Appeal of Prince George's County, Maryland
Compare State of New Hampshire v. Marshall, 616 F.2d 240 (1st Cir.), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 806 , 101 S.Ct. 53 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (rejecting tenth amendment challenge to amendments to Federal Unemployment Tax Act extending benefits to state employees on grounds that statute was enacted under spending power, not commerce power); Cantwell v. County of San Mateo, 631 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1703 , 68 L.Ed.2d 199 (1981) (holding federal statute governing retirement pay for reserve military personnel must prevail over state statute, despite Usery, be…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Oklahoma v. Richard S. Schweiker
(2×)
See, e. g., New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Security v. Marshall, 616 F.2d 240 , 247 (1st Cir.), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 806 , 101 S.Ct. 53 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980); Florida Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Califano, 449 F.Supp. 274, 284 (N.D.Fla.), aff'd mem., 585 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2051 , 60 L.Ed.2d 659 (1979); North Carolina ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. District of Columbia
Compare State of New Hampshire v. Marshall, 616 F.2d 240 (1st Cir.), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 806 , 101 S.Ct. 53 , 66 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (rejecting tenth amendment challenge to amendments to Federal Unemployment Tax Act extending benefits to state employees on grounds that statute was enacted under spending power, not commerce power); Cantwell v. County of San Mateo, 631 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 998 , 101 S.Ct. 1703 , 68 L.Ed.2d 199 (1981) (holding federal statute governing retirement pay for reserve military personnel must prevail over state statute, despite Usery, be…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reed
v.
Schwab
v.
Schwab
No. 80-5079.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ore. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.