green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
LaBalbo v. Hymes
Moreover, once the right, entitlement or benefit is conferred, the state "may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Louder-mill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 , 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1492-93 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); see also Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2502 , 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980) (denial of federal statutory entitlement enforceable by § 1983 action); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 262 at n. 8, 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 1018 at n. 8, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); but see 1st National Bank of O…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boatowners & Tenants Ass'n v. Port of Seattle
In Fisher v. City of Tucson, 663 F.2d 861, 863 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 178 , 74 L.Ed.2d 146 (1982), we discussed the application of the first Cort factor and stated: In California v. Sierra Club, the Court emphasized that the first Cort v. Ash factor requires not only a consideration of whether the plaintiff is a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, but also whether “Congress intended to confer federal rights upon those beneficiaries.” 451 U.S. at 294 ,101 S.Ct. at 1779, 68 L.Ed.2d at 108.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boatowners And Tenants Association, Inc. v. Port Of Seattle
While the final three Cort factors focus on the existence of a remedy, the first concerns whether a federal right has been created. 22 In Fisher v. City of Tucson, 663 F.2d 861, 863 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 178 , 74 L.Ed.2d 146 (1982), we discussed the application of the first Cort factor and stated: 23 In California v. Sierra Club, the Court emphasized that the first Cort v. Ash factor requires not only a consideration of whether the plaintiff is a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, but also whether "Congress intended to confer federal…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hufsmith v. Weaver
See First National Bank of Omaha, 482 F.Supp. at 521, 524-25 (Noerr-Pennington doctrine held applicable to plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and tortious interference with business claims), aff'd per curiam, 636 F.2d 195 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981); Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607 , 614-15 (8th Cir.1980) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine held applicable to plaintiff’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 620 F.2d 1301, 1318-19 (8th Cir.) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine held applicable …
discussed
Cited "see"
Lauritzen v. Lehman
In Premachandra , the Eighth Circuit argued that its interpretation of § 2412(b) would not "swallow up” § 2412(d), because in that circuit § 1983 actions may only be brought for statutory violations that implicate fundamental human rights. 727 F.2d at 730; see First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lauritzen v. Lehman
In Premachandra, the Eighth Circuit argued that its interpretation of Sec. 2412(b) would not "swallow up" Sec. 2412(d), because in that circuit Sec. 1983 actions may only be brought for statutory violations that implicate fundamental human rights. 727 F.2d at 730; see First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Kassel
See abo First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981); Chase v. McMasters, 573 F.2d 1011, 1017 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 453 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow
See First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis, 482 F.Supp. 514, 524 (D.Minn. 1979), aff’d, 636 F.2d 195 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981); Pennwalt Corp. v. Zenith Laboratories, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 413, 424 (E.D.Mich.1979), appeal dism’d, 615 F.2d 1362 (6th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Havoco Of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow
See First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis, 482 F.Supp. 514, 524 (D.Minn.1979), aff'd, 636 F.2d 195 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981); Pennwalt Corp. v. Zenith Laboratories, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 413, 424 (E.D.Mich.1979), appeal dism'd, 615 F.2d 1362 (6th Cir.1980). 44 For purposes of this motion, the court treats as undisputed the allegations that defendants registered complaints with the SEC, that as a result the SEC conducted an investigation of Havoco or its subsidiary, and that this investigation caused Havoco …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes County
See also First National Bank of Omaha v. Marquette National Bank, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 , 101 S.Ct. 1761 , 68 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981) (holding § 1983 action limited to claims "in the nature of the rights protected by the Civil Rights Act,” including "fundamental human, highly personalized rights____”). 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carabbia
v.
Ohio
v.
Ohio
No. 80-1397.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 6, 1981.
Published
Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.