green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Manufacturing Research Corp. v. Graybar Electric Co.
But see Tveter v. A B Turn-O-Matic, 633 F.2d 831, 833 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to cite relevant prior art to Patent Office overturns presumption of validity and shifts burden of proof to patent holder to demonstrate validity), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981). .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Drug Mart Pharmacy Corp. v. American Home Products Corp.
the amount of illegal discrimination can only be used to quantify damages if the plaintiff demonstrates that favored purchasers lowered their prices in an amount equivalent to the illegal benefit they received.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Juno Online Services, L.P. v. Juno Lighting, Inc.
what is material is not that plaintiffs hands are dirty, but that he dirtied them in acquiring the rights he now asserts, or that the manner of dirtying renders inequitable the assertion of such rights against the defendant
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Monahan's Marine, Inc. v. Boston Whaler, Inc.
unilateral action, no matter what its motivation, cannot violate 1
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
The other flexible packaging materials included Glassine, Greaseproof and Vegetable Parchment Papers; Waxing Papers; Sulphite Bag and Wrapping Papers; Aluminum Foil; Cellulose Acetate; Pliofilm; Polyethylene; Saran and Cry-O-Rap. 451 U.S. at 405, 76 S.Ct. at 1012 . 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hartsfield
In her opening statement, the prosecutor "stated the nature of the charge[s] and the facts that [she] expected to prove in support of them[,] and thus [her] opening statement was adequate" ( People v Nielsen , 67 AD3d 1440, 1441 [4th Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Kurtz , 51 NY2d 380, 384 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]; People v Nuffer , 70 AD3d 1299, 1300 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lewis-Bush
The opening statement "sufficiently set forth the charges and facts that the People expected to prove" ( People v Manchester , 123 AD3d 1285, 1288 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]; see People v Kurtz , 51 NY2d 380, 384 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]; People v Nuffer , 70 AD3d 1299, 1300 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Nguyen
Given that this was a nonjury trial, the prosecutor was not required to deliver an opening statement (see CPL 320.20 [3] [a]) and, even if the opening statement had been inadequate, the remedy — had counsel objected — would have been to afford the prosecutor “an opportunity to rectify any defect” (People v Ward, 42 AD3d 579, 581 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 883 [2007]; see People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 386 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Nielsen
“The prosecutor stated the nature of the charge[ ] and the facts that he expected to prove in support of them[,] and thus his opening statement was adequate” (People v Dennee, 291 AD2d 888, 888 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 650 [2002]; see generally People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 384 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Group Baron Long Capitan Grande Band of Digueno Mission Indians of Viejas Group Reservation
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 715 (9th Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); see also Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 , 917 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see"
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714-16 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); see also Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 999 F.2d 503, 507 (11th Cir.1993) (finding federal question jurisdiction lacking where plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but “presented] facts establishing a breach of contract claim”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation v. Tonawanda Band Of Seneca Indians
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714-15 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); see also Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 999 F.2d 503, 507 (11th Cir.1993) (finding federal question jurisdiction lacking where plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but "present[ed] facts establishing a breach of contract claim").
discussed
Cited "see"
Developer's Mortgage Co. v. TransOhio Savings Bank
Accord American Fletcher Mortgage Co. v. U.S. Steel Credit Corp., 635 F.2d 1247, 1254 (7th Cir.1980) (court considered three years to be a “short note maturity”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1982 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Board of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Board of Equalization, and Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714 (9th Cir.1980) (declining to interpret "arising under" language in section 1362 more broadly than identical language in section 1331), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981). 17 The Supreme Court has explained that an action arises under federal law if that law creates the cause of action, American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 , 36 S.Ct. 585, 586 , 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916), or if a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of plaintiff's caus…
discussed
Cited "see"
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714 (9th Cir.1980) (declining to interpret “arising under” language in section 1362 more broadly than identical language in section 1331), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Board of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Board of Equalization, and Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714 (9th Cir.1980) (declining to interpret "arising under" language in section 1362 more broadly than identical language in section 1331), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981). 17 The Supreme Court has explained that an action arises under federal law if that law creates the cause of action, American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 , 36 S.Ct. 585, 586 , 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916), or if a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of plaintiff's caus…
discussed
Cited "see"
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714 (9th Cir.1980) (declining to interpret “arising under” language in section 1362 more broadly than identical language in section 1331), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
5 Employee Benefits Cas. 1917, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 21,716 Michael Rivera, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant-Appellee, and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and Donald E. Volck, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Cross- Appellants-Appellees v. Gloria Becerra, Director of California Employment Development Department, and Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of United States Department of Labor, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Becerra
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Marriage of Davies
See Catalano v. Pechous (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 146 , cert. denied (1981), 451 U.S. 911 , 68 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wolf v. Banco Nacional De Mexico
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 848 , 95 S.Ct. 2051, 2058 , 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1974) (quoting Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 , 88 S.Ct. 548, 553 , 19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967)); see American FÍetcher Mortgage Co. v. United States Steel Credit Corp., 635 F.2d 1247, 1253 (7th Cir.1980) (“literal inclusion in the statutory list of potential securities is not the test”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1982 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
See Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill.2d 146, 168 , 50 Ill.Dec. 242, 252-253 , 419 N.E.2d 350, 360-61 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1981 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981) (refusal to rule whether length of time before republication, and other factors, would affect privilege).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Corea
The prosecutor’s opening statement adequately described what the People intended to prove, and properly prepared the jury to resolve the factual issues at the trial (see CPL 260.30 [3]; People v Vera, 11 AD3d 716 [2004]; see also People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 384 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]; People v Etoria, 266 AD2d 559 [1999]; People v Carter, 248 AD2d 722 [1998]; People v Vulpis, 173 AD2d 582 [1991]; People v Brown, 158 AD2d 461 [1990], cert denied 498 US 870 [1990]; People v Tzatzimakis, 150 AD2d 512 [1989]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Larios
The prosecutor’s opening statement adequately described what the People intended to prove, and properly prepared the jury to resolve the factual issues at the trial (see CPL 260.30 [3]; People v Vera, 11 AD3d 716 [2004]; see also People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 384 [1980], cert denied 451 US 911 [1981]; People v Etoria, 266 AD2d 559 [1999]; People v Carter, 248 AD2d 722 [1998]; People v Vulpis, 173 AD2d 582 [1991]; People v Brown, 158 AD2d 461 [1990]; People v Tzatzimakis, 150 AD2d 512 [1989]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Western Shoshone Business Council v. Babbitt
See, e.g., Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714-15 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d 479, 481-82 (10th Cir.1975). 26 Plaintiffs invoke 28 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Western Shoshone Business Council ex rel. Western Shoshone Tribe of the Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt
See, e.g., Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714-15 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d 479, 481-82 (10th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William Dougherty v. Parsec, Inc. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local Union 100 Budco Group, Inc., Seaboard System Railroad
See, e.g., American Fletcher Mortgage Co., Inc. v. U.S. Steel Credit Corp., 635 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1982 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981); Goodall v. Columbia Ventures, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 1324, 1332 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Continental Research, Inc. v. Cruttenden, Podesta & Miller, 222 F.Supp. 190 (D.Minn.1963). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Epic Mortgage Insurance Litigation
See e.g., American Fletcher Mortgage Co. v. U.S. Steel Credit Corp., 635 F.2d 1247, 1254 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1982 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981); National Bank of Commerce of Dallas v. All American Assurance Co., 583 F.2d 1295, 1301 (5th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First State Bank v. American National Bank
See, e.g., American Fletcher Mortgage Company, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Credit Corporation, 635 F.2d 1247 , 1254 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, U.S. Steel Credit Corporation v. American Fletcher Mortgage Company, Inc., 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1982 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981) (loan obligations evidenced by secured promissory note of three-year maturity date constitute a collateralized commercial loan, not an investment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,309 Karen A. McVay v. Western Plains Service Corporation
See also American Fletcher Mortgage Co. v. United States Steel Credit Corp., 635 F.2d 1247 , 1254 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1282 , 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981). 4 A number of courts which have analyzed loan participations under the broader rubric of a security have held that receipt of interest is not directly tied to profitability in such a way as to make loan partic-ipations securities.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Catalano
v.
Pechous and Pechous v. Catalano
v.
Pechous and Pechous v. Catalano
No. 80-1456; No. 80-1466.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 20, 1981.
Published
Sup. Ct. Ill. 2d 350.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 83 Ill. 2d 146, 419 N. E.