green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Company
(2×)
But see Sohyde Drilling & Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co., 644 F.2d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir.) (blow out of gas well in dredged canal slip not actionable under Admiralty Extension Act), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 12 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Washington
(2×)
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.) (government has same fiduciary relationship with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as it does with the Crow Tribe), cert. denied, Crow Tribe of Indians v. EPA, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6678, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,923 Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Indian Reservation, Cross-Appellee, and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. State of Washington William R. Wilkerson, Individually and as Acting Director of the State of Washington Department of Fisheries Frank R. Lockard, Individually and as Director of the State of Washington Department of Game Washington State Game Commission, and United States of America v. State of Washington
(2×)
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.) (government has same fiduciary relationship with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as it does with the Crow Tribe), cert. denied, Crow Tribe of Indians v. EPA, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mississippi Department of Economic & Community Development v. United States Department of Labor
(2×)
See 29 U.S.C. § 1603 . 9 . 635 F.2d 337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas J. Maloney
(2×)
United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 562 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 , 109 S.Ct. 1637 , 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989); accord United States v. Lee Stoller Enter., Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1319 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1982); United States v. Hughes, 895 F.2d 1135, 1140 (6th Cir.1990). 53 The government has certainly succeeded in establishing that Maloney agreed to conduct the affairs of the Circuit Court through several predicate acts, even though each predicate act did not involve the exact same participants.
discussed
Cited "see"
National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Palm Beach Gardens, 635 F.2d 337, 340-41 (5th Cir.) (finding no limitation period for a suit of recovery of Hill-Burton funds under the Act), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alex
See United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1319 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Havasupai Tribe v. United States
(2×)
See Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Covelo Indian Community v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(2×)
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Covelo Indian Community v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, California Trout, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mendocino County, California County of Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency, Respondents-Intervenors
(2×)
See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the Complaint of Sheen
(2×)
See Sohyde Drilling and Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing, 644 F.2d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir. cert. denied sub nom, Valero Energy Corp. v. Sohyde Drilling & Workover, Inc., 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). 6 Accordingly, the Admiralty Extension Act covers only those torts that occur on navigable waters and have a sufficient “maritime flavor.” Sohyde Drilling, 644 F.2d at 1136 (citing Executive Jet).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John M. Murphy
(2×)
See United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981) (a county sheriffs office may be an enterprise under RICO).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mottolo
(2×)
See generally United States v. City of Palm Beach Gardens, 685 F.2d 337, 341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981) (where no applicable statute of limitations, United States government statutory action to recover government monies could be brought at any time). 2.
examined
Cited "see"
Douglas v. United States
(12×)
United States v. Curcio (Curcio II), 694 F.2d 14, 22 (2d Cir.1982); see Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 532-33 (D.C.) (per curiam) (Newman, C.J., dissenting), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Angelo Pepe and Thomas Miglionico, United States of America v. Albert Joseph Facchiano, Francis Santo, Paul Santo
Accord United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, 652 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bird
Accord United States v. Carney, 665 F.2d 1064, 1065 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bartley Burns and Lawrence Kelly
See United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Aubrey Thompson, Thomas Edward Sisk, Charles Frederick Taylor
See United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313 , 1318 n.9 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981) (so citing Herman); Angelilli, supra, 660 F.2d at 33 (so citing Whitehead). 5 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
William C. Davidson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for United Bank of Texas, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
(4×)
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 , 58 S.Ct. 785 , 82 L.Ed. 1224 (1938); United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 , 60 S.Ct. 1019 , 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940); see also United States v. Palm Beach Gardens, 635 F.2d 337, 339-40 (5th Cir.) (explaining that the general rule “derives from the common law principle that immunity from limitations periods is an essential prerogative of sovereignty”), cer t. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Whitely v. New Mexico State Personnel Board
See, e.g., Anderson v. City of Northlake, 500 F.Supp. 863, 866 (N.D.Ill.1980) (holding statutes in question did not evidence legislative intent to create binding contract), aff'd, 657 F.2d 272 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Washington Fed’n of State Employees v. State, 101 Wash.2d 536 , 682 P.2d 869, 872 (Wash.1984) (holding terms and conditions of public employment are basically controlled by statute rather than contract); Grant v. Nellius, 377 A.2d 354, 358 (Del.1977) (holding statute that altered future, unvested benefits of state employee…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Patrick L. Swindall
See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 618 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); see also United States v. Carney, 665 F.2d 1064, 1065 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (applying general rule to Speech or Debate claim), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. John v. North Carolina Parole Commission
(2×)
See id. at 792; see also Avery v. Maryland, 515 F.Supp. 818, 823 (D.Md.1980) (“[T]he presentation of expert testimony by the prosecution is neither mandated nor likely to be helpful to the jury in the routine obscenity case ... (and the) failure to provide such testimony is not a basis for habeas corpus relief”), aff'd 661 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fitzgerald v. United States
(2×)
Douglas, supra, 488 A.2d at 140-41 ; see also Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 531 (D.C.) (Newman, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). “[T]he choice as to which right shall take precedence must be left to the defendant, properly informed of that choice.” Douglas, supra, 488 A.2d at 144 (emphasis supplied).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
The Blackfeet Tribe v. United States Department of Labor
(4×)
Further support for the standard can be derived from the well-established rule governing petitions to rehear final orders of administrative agencies. 18 In that context, courts have consistently ruled that administrative agencies should not be required to reopen their final orders "except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Mobil Oil Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 685 F.2d 624, 631 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citations omitted); see also Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 717 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel
(2×)
However, proponents of the bill make clear that the good cause exception was not to be an 'escape clause which may be arbitrarily exercised but requires legitimate grounds supported in law and fact by the required finding.' Legitimate grounds were defined as an 'urgency of conditions coupled with demonstrated and unavoidable limitations of time,' and that the primary consideration was to be the 'convenience or necessity of the people affected.' " 51 United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir.1977) (footnotes omitted); see also Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 708-09 (9th Cir.), cert…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel
(2×)
However, proponents of the bill make clear that the good cause exception was not to be an ‘escape clause which may be arbitrarily exercised but requires legitimate grounds supported in law and fact by the required finding.’ Legitimate grounds were defined as an ‘urgency of conditions coupled with demonstrated and unavoidable limitations of time,’ and that the primary consideration was to be the ‘convenience or necessity of the people affected.’ ” United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir.1977) (footnotes omitted); see also Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 , 708-09 (9th …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Neapolitan, United States of America v. Thomas Covello, Sr., Ralph Mascio, Jr., Joseph W. Hlavach, Antoine A. Turner, Victor R. Meadows, and Clement A. Messino
See also United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1320-21 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rogers
Cashell v. United States, 456 U.S. 915 , 102 S.Ct. 1767 , 72 L.Ed.2d 173 (1982); see also United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1319 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 812 (5th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Neapolitan
See also United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1320-21 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 , 102 S.Ct. 636 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Welch v. United States
(2×)
Pierce v. United States, 402 A.2d 1237, 1243-44 (D.C.1979); see also Lewis v. United States, 430 A.2d 528, 529-30 (D.C.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 , 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811, 820-21 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Pan Air Corp.
(2×)
See, e.g., Sohyde Drilling & Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co., 644 F.2d 1132, 1135 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Moser v. Texas Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006 , 1009, modified per curiam in other respects, 630 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Denyse Nettune Jordan Smith, Etc. v. Pan Air Corp., Martha Kolb, Etc. v. Texaco, Inc. And Pool Offshore Co., Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. And American Home Assurance Co. v. Pool Company of Texas
(2×)
See, e.g., Sohyde Drilling & Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co., 644 F.2d 1132, 1135 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 635 , 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); Moser v. Texas Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006 , 1009, modified per curiam in other respects, 630 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1981). 18 We conclude, therefore, that, because the Smith claim arose from the crash of an aircraft in an inland Louisiana marsh, the district court properly dismissed it for want of maritime jurisdiction.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Avery
v.
Maryland
v.
Maryland
No. 81-215.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1981.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.