green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. District of Columbia
(10×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
But cf. United States v. New Mexico, 624 F.2d 111 , 116 n.5 (10th Cir. 1980) (“Although we are skeptical of cosmetic provisions drafted by government functionaries, we must find immunity when these contracts inherently and inexorably draw a private corporation so close to the government as to make it a servant.”), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 909 , 101 S.Ct. 1346 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dopico v. Goldschmidt
the basic inquiry is always to plumb the intent of congress, that the cort factors are simply inquiries helpful in that endeavor
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Picard v. Wall Street Discount Corp.
Leist v. Simplot, 638 F.2d 283 , 297 n.11 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1346 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981); id. at 338 (Mansfield, J., dissenting).
cited
Cited "see"
First Commodity Corp. Of Boston and Richard Badoian v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and John Ruddy
See generally Leist v. Simplot, 638 F.2d 283, 286-87 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1346 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman
See Piper Aircraft Company v. Reyno, 450 U.S. 909 , 102 S. Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Sher v. Stoughton
See Phillips v. Smith, 485 F.Supp. 1365, 1370 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 632 F.2d 1019 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 101 S.Ct. 1345 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myron v. Hauser
Compare Leist v. Simplot, 638 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1346 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981) (finding implied private right of action in favor of commodities futures customers), and Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 622 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 451 U.S. 906 , 101 S.Ct. 1971 , 68 L.Ed.2d 293 (1981) (same), with Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co., 634 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1980), pet. for cert. filed, 50 U.S.L.W. 3079 (Mar. 10, 1981) (no implied private right of action for commodities futures customers).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myron v. Hauser
Compare Leist v. Simplot, 638 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1346 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981) (finding implied private right of action in favor of commodities futures customers), and Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 622 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 451 U.S. 906 , 101 S.Ct. 1971 , 68 L.Ed.2d 293 (1981) (same), with Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co., 634 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1980), pet. for cert. filed, 50 U.S.L.W. 3079 (Mar. 10, 1981) (no implied private right of action for commodities futures customers).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Swomley v. Watt
See also Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW, 619 F.2d 252, 256-57 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. granted, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 409 U.S. 909 , 101 S.Ct. 1345 , 67 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981); Public Citizen, Inc. v. Simon, 539 F.2d at 217 — 18.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Logan
v.
Zimmerman Brush Co.
v.
Zimmerman Brush Co.
No. 80-5950.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1981.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in jorma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.