green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.6 score
“skidmore”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United Transportation Union v. Illinois Central Railroad
See Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Roger Bettelyoun
United States v. Michalek, 464 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1972); see United States v. Hanson, 618 F.2d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 67 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Delano Romanus Oakie, United States of America v. Kirk Morin Oakie
See United States v. Hanson, 618 F.2d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 67 (1980). 3 The district court properly instructed the jury on these issues, defendants did not object to the instruction,' and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Officer Shooter was engaged in his duties as a BIA Deputy Special Officer at the time of the assaults.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Garrett
(2×)
See United States v. Hanson, 472 F.Supp. 1049, 1055 (D.Minn.), aff'd 618 F.2d 1261 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 67 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alice Leach and Carmen Irons v. Pan American World Airways, Teamsters Local Union No. 769
See Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (no right to a jury trial in an action to vacate an arbitration award under the Railway Labor Act); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n., 373 F.2d 136 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 827 , 88 S.Ct. 77 , 19 L.Ed.2d 83 (1967) (same). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Julian R. Villanueva v. Department of Justice
Id. at-, 105 S.Ct. at 1983 , 85 L.Ed. at 183. 13 . 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(l). 14 . 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5). 15 . 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(6). 16 . 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(l). 17 . 32 C.F.R. § 1901.61 (d)(1); see Alford v. C.I.A., 610 F.2d 348, 349 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 150 , 66 L.Ed.2d 68 (1980). 18 . 32 C.F.R. § 1901.61 (a)(1). 19 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lake
United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 75 (2d Cir.1992) (citing Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503-04 , 45 S.Ct. 414 , 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925)); see also United States v. Vargas, 621 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 150 , 66 L.Ed.2d 68 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hinson v. National Transportation Safety Board
See also Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1979) (National Rail Adjustment Board "functions solely as an impartial adjudicatory tribunal" without regulatory or enforcement authority, and is not a proper party to a petition for review of its order), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hinson v. National Transportation Safety Board
See also Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1979) (National Rail Adjustment Board “functions solely as an impartial adjudicatory tribunal” without regula-toiy or enforcement authority, and is not a proper party to a petition for review of its order), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Feichtinger v. Conant
See, e.g., Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); Tamari v. Conrad, 552 F.2d 778 (7th Cir.1977); Fong v. American Airlines, Inc., 431 F.Supp. 1340 (N.D.Cal.1977); Merchants Despatch Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Csx Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union
Indeed, “[p]erhaps ‘review’ is a misnomer;” where fraud is not an issue, we ask only “whether the arbitrators did the job they were told to do — not whether they did it well, or correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether they did it.” Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 768 F.2d 914, 921 (7th Cir.1985); see also Skidmore v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 619 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 148 , 66 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rivera
Compare United States v. Vargas, 621 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir.) (use of ruse to gain admission to an apartment after the issuance of a warrant is fully justified), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 150 , 66 L.Ed.2d 68 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gambino
The Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.” United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 , 96 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 , 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Vargas, 621 F.2d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 150 , 66 L.Ed.2d 68 (1980) (�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gregory James Freeman and David Lyle Boese, A/K/A Dennis Phillip Stevens and David Sterling
(2×)
Compare United States v. Vargas, 621 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 , 101 S.Ct. 150 , 66 L.Ed.2d 68 (1980); United States v. Cutts, 535 F.2d 1083, 1084 (8th Cir. 1976) (holding that inadvertence requirement is unnecessary in cases of seizure of contraband), with United States v. Ortega, 644 F.2d 512, 515 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Roberts, 644 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 , 101 S.Ct. 79 , 66 L.Ed.2d 23 (1980); United States v. Hare, 589 F.2d 1291, 1293-96 (6th Cir. 1979); United States v. Bills, 555 F.2d 1250, 1251 (5th Cir. 1977); United State…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Skidmore
v.
Consolidated Rail Corp.
v.
Consolidated Rail Corp.
No. 79-6650.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.