green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Penny v. United Fruit Co.
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, Rosenberg v. Johns Manville Corp., 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co., 270 N.Y. 287 , 200 N.E. 824 (1936).
discussed
Cited "see"
Monte v. National Gypsum Company
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.1985) ("The New York Court of Appeals has stated repeatedly that the New York Statute of Limitations for inhalation, ingestion, or injection of harmful substances begins to run 'from the last exposure to the substance ...' "). 3 Moreover, in a Memorandum addressing the legislative purpose behind the revival statute, Senator Stafford noted that "an action must be commenced within t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Monte v. National Gypsum Co.
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.1985) (“The New York Court of Appeals has stated repeatedly that the New York Statute of Limitations for inhalation, ingestion, or injection of harmful substances begins to run ‘from the last exposure to the substance ... ’ ”). 3 Moreover, in a Memorandum addressing the legislative purpose behind the revival statute, Senator Stafford noted that “an action must be commenc…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. 57,261 Items of Drug Paraphernalia, Etc., (88-5320), Contempo Products, Inc., by and Through Its President Richard K. Rowland (88- 5320), Claimant-Appellant. Contempo Products, Inc. v. Ralph Whiteside and Bill Crane (87-6018)
See 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982), on remand, 709 F.2d 534 (6th Cir.1983). 11 The Hoffman case is squarely on point.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Christensen
See Gaffey, 50 Or.App. at 632 , 624 P.2d at 625 (citing Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1980), vacated by 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982), ordinance upheld on appeal after remand, 709 F.2d 534 (1983)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. 57,261 Items of Drug Paraphernalia
See 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982), on remand, 709 F.2d 534 (6th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walsh v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
That section abrogated the New York Court of Appeals’ “ancient doctrine that in tort cases the statute of limitations runs from the date the injury is inflicted, regardless of when the injury is actually discovered.” McLaughlin, Practice Commentary to CPLR § 214-c; see Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), appeal dism’d, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Seckular v. Celotex
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y. 2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S. 2d 244 , 430 N.E. 2d 1297, 1298-1299 (Ct.App. 1981), amended 55 N.Y. 2d 802 , 447 N.Y.S. 2d 437 , 432 N.E. 2d 139 (Ct.App. 1981), cert. den. 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982) (statute of limitations begins to run upon inhalation of deleterious substance).
discussed
Cited "see"
Philman's, Inc. v. City of West Carrollton
See Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F.2d 916, 925 (6th Cir.1980), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 451 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 2998 , 69 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981), 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982), on later appeal, 709 F.2d 534 (6th Cir.1983); Wright, Miller & Cooper, § 4242 at 461-63.
cited
Cited "see"
Nova Records, Inc. v. Sendak
See 451 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 2998 , 68 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981) and 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982) 5 Antioch and Record Head were decided by the same panel on the same day.
cited
Cited "see"
Nova Records, Inc. v. Sendak
See 451 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 2998 , 68 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981) and 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982). .
cited
Cited "see"
Camille Corporation, an Illinois Corporation v. William Phares
See 451 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 2998 , 68 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981) and, 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
Charlotte E. Neubauer, Cross-Appellants v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Cross-Appellees v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Third Party Cross-Appellees
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (Ct. App.1981), certiorari denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Ass'n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Worcester
See also Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F.2d 916, 937 (6th Cir.1980), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 456 U.S. 968 , 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982) (“The cities’ interest in regulation of advertising is limited to preventing the sale of drug paraphernalia inside their municipal boundaries.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re DES Cases
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981) (declining to interpret New York tort statute of limitations as running from time of "discovery" rather than time of "exposure" for latent injuries), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Rosenfeld v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ashley v. Abbott Laboratories
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981) (declining to interpret New York tort statute of limitations as running from time of “discovery” rather than time of “exposure” for latent injuries), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Rosenfeld v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.
See, e.g., Monte, 921 F.2d at 407 (citing Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.
See, e.g., Monte, 921 F.2d at 407 (citing Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samuel Eubanks, M.D. v. Wallace Wilkinson
See also Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 770 , 108 S.Ct. 2138, 2150-51 , 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (Court declined to presume that Mayor would "adhere to standards absent from the statute's face," and declared that "the limits the city claims are implicit in its law [must] be made explicit by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice" and asserting that "[t]his court will not write nonbinding limits into a silent state statute"). 42 This Circuit has adhered to the principle that a federal court "has very limited pow…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, 1010-12 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245-46 , 430 N.E.2d 1297, 1298-99 (1981) (period of limitations ran from date of last employment-related asbestos exposure), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); id. at 1012-13, 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (Fuchberg, J., dissenting) (“it would be unreasonable and perhaps unconstitutional to hold that his time to sue expired before it was possible for him to learn of the wrong”) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jack P. Racich and Gertrude C. Racich v. The Celotex Corporation
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, 1010 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Levas and Levas, D/B/A Levas T-Shirts v. Village of Antioch, Illinois
(2×)
See also Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F.2d 916, 934-936 (6th Cir. 1980), vacated and remanded-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (scienter coupled with definition of drug paraphernalia would obviate vagueness problems, but for “designed for use” language, which is vague, overbroad, and unseverable). . “[T]he Court has recognized that a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.” - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1193 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Parma, Ohio
v.
Record Revolution, No. 6, Inc.
v.
Record Revolution, No. 6, Inc.
No. 81-1649.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 17, 1982.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 56 opinions | Published
Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489 (1982).
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.