green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.9 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases ·
"the issue of who has prevailed is a realistic judgment, not a technical one"
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Devine v. Sutermeister
the issue of who has prevailed is a realistic judgment, not a technical one
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Devine v. Sutermeister
the issue of who has prevailed is a realistic judgment, not a technical one
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Esteban Madruga
(2×)
See Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 708 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B), cert. granted, 455 U.S. 937 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 , cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 368 , 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982). 3 Although we note that a district court’s conclusion regarding whether a party’s actions before a federal magistrate were sufficient to preserve the party’s legal rights on appeal to the district court is probably a question of law — or at least a mixed question of fact and law 4 — we need not reach *1013 that issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert E. Badham v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California
(2×)
We have stated "that there is no per se civil rights exception to the abstention doctrine." C-Y Development, 703 F.2d at 381 ; accord Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 697 (5th Cir.1981) ("An alleged denial of voting rights does not, in itself, constitute a 'special circumstance' which automatically precludes federal court abstention."), cert. granted, 455 U.S. 937 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 , cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 368 , 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Badham v. United States District Court
(2×)
We have stated “that there is no per se civil rights exception to the abstention doctrine.” C-Y Development, 703 F.2d at 381 ; accord Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 697 (5th Cir.1981) (“An alleged denial of voting rights does not, in itself, constitute a ‘special circumstance’ which automatically precludes federal court abstention.”), cert. granted, 455 U.S. 937 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 , cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 368 , 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
CANTERBURY NUR. HOME, INC. v. Ala. Health Etc. AG.
See 634 F.2d 629 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied , 455 U.S. 938 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Browning v. Diamond Construction Company
See Churchill v. Perini North River Associates, 652 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1425 , 71 L.Ed.2d ---- (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Browning v. B. F. Diamond Construction Co.
(2×)
See Churchill v. Perini North River Associates, 652 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1425 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
See e.g., Coen v. Harrison County School Bd., 638 F.2d 24 , 26 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied. 455 U.S. 938 , 102 S.Ct. 1427 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982) (holding plaintiff not “prevailing party” because lawsuit was not necessary to relief).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca11 1986
(2×)
Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 625 F.2d 1016 (1980); see also Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. Unit B), reh'g denied, 664 F.2d 291 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 937 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 368 , 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Curry v. Baker
(2×)
Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 625 F.2d 1016 (1980); see also Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. Unit B), reh’g denied, 664 F.2d 291 (11th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 937 , 102 S.Ct. 1426 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 368 , 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Colorado State Fair & Industrial Exposition Commission
See also Coen v. Harrison County School Board, 638 F.2d 24, 26 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 938 , 102 S.Ct. 1427 , 71 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982).
Enmund
v.
Florida
v.
Florida
No. 81-5321.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1982.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2)
Sup. Ct. Fla. [Certiorari granted, 454 U. S. 939.] Motion of George R. Georgieff to permit Lawrence A. Kaden, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted. Motion of William C. McLain to permit James S. Liebman, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.