green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.1 score
“ausal connection may be demonstrated by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as protected conduct closely followed by adverse action.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roe v. Antle
ausal connection may be demonstrated by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as protected conduct closely followed by adverse action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kyocera Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Formerly Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation, Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Lapine Technology Corporation, and Lapine Holding Company, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Lapine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation, Lapine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee v. Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Fba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
It is [a] fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration." Id. at 734. 47 Kyocera omits that McClatchy specifically recognized limitations on the finality of an arbitration award: 48 It has been recognized in common law arbitration that an arbitrator can correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of his award, complete an arbitration if the award is not complete, and clarify an ambiguity in the award.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.
It is [a] fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration.” Id. at 734.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp.
Id., at 734-35. 5 The district court properly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to rule on Pyrotronics’ motion while the issue of the scope of Pyrodyne’s defenses was pending in this court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pyrodyne Corporation v. Pyrotronics Corporation
Id., at 734-35. 5 The district court properly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to rule on Pyrotronics' motion while the issue of the scope of Pyrodyne's defenses was pending in this court.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sanchez
See United States v. Gianni, 678 F.2d 956, 959-60 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert S, FURR, Leslie Woosley, Bernard E. Ozinga, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellant
See Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Doan v. Seagate Technology, Inc.
See Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Berry v. General Motors Corp.
See Burns v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982) (protected conduct closely followed by adverse action can demonstrate a causal connection).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert J. Austin, D/B/A Austin Roofing v. State Industrial Insurance System Laury M. Lewis, General Manager
See O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Austin v. State Industrial Insurance System
See O’Connor v. State, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982) (state bar found to be a state agency entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though its funds are from attorney dues and not from the state general fund).
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Company
See McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731 , 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co.
See McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731 , 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur J. Greer
See United States v. Gianni, 678 F.2d 956, 958-59 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Timothy Malone v. John Avenenti, Warden Robert Corbin, Attorney General
(2×)
See Cel-A-Pack v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 680 F.2d 664 , 668 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. Corbin v. Tolleson
See McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, International Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (Card), Plaintiff v. The Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District
(2×)
See Cel-A-Pak v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 680 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982) (Rule 3(c) mandates liberality in determining compliance with Rule 4(a)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Laxalt v. McClatchy
See McClatchy Newspapers d/b/a The Sacramento Bee v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); The Sacramento Bee, published by McClatchy Newspapers v. United States District Court, 656 F.2d 477 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 456 U.S. 983 , 102 S.Ct. 2257 , 72 L.Ed.2d 861 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. University of Nevada
See NRS 41.031(3); See O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Linda Love v. Re/max of America, Inc.
See Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert HADDAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
See Cel-A-Pak v. California Agricultural Labor Re *1457 lations Bd., 680 F.2d 664 , 667 (9th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Poe v. Gladden, 287 F.2d 249, 251 (9th Cir. 1961). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lanier v. Old Republic Insurance
See also McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731 , 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Local 35 v. Washington Post Co., 442 F.2d 1234, 1238-39 (D.C.Cir. 1971); American Centennial Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juan Delgado, Emilio Albelo, Juan Carlos Riverol, Tomas Raul Hernandez
United States v. Tamargo, 672 F.2d 887, 889 (11th Cir.) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 864 , 103 S.Ct. 141 , 74 L.Ed.2d 119 (1982); see also United States v. Gianni, 678 F.2d 956, 959 (11th Cir.) (specifying that a defendant’s assent may be inferred from acts furthering the conspiracy’s purpose), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SE PA. v. Casey
See, e.g., McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731 , 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); see generally 7 James W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stone v. City & County of San Francisco
NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir.1976); see also McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 735 (9th Cir.) (“[A]n appeal of a contempt order issued to force compliance with an injunction should not divest the [district] court of jurisdiction to modify that order to achieve the same enforcement purpose.”), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Solomon Philip Panitz, United States of America v. Andrew Stewart Baumwald
See, e.g., United States v. Gianni, 678 F.2d 956, 959-60 (11th Cir.) (government’s delivery and sale of marijuana to willing buyers for large sums of cash does not constitute outrageous conduct), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
See, e.g., Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Lynn v. Regents of the University of California, 656 F.2d 1337, 1344-45 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823 , 103 S.Ct. 53 , 74 L.Ed.2d 59 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
See, e.g., Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Lynn v. Regents of the University of California, 656 F.2d 1337, 1344-45 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823 , 103 S.Ct. 53 , 74 L.Ed.2d 59 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fowle v. C & C Cola
See, e.g., Jayasinghe v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 760 F.2d 132, 135 (7th Cir.1985) (“the policies behind the McDonnell Douglas template would best be served by limiting the prima facie showing of ‘qualification’ to relative objective qualifications.”) These courts have reasoned that evaluations that a plaintiff lacks these qualities are more susceptible of abuse and more likely to mask pretext. “[S]ubjective decision making provides an opportunity for unlawful discrimination.” Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 107…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson F. Fowle v. C & C Cola
See, e.g., Jayasinghe v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 760 F.2d 132, 135 (7th Cir.1985) ("the policies behind the McDonnell Douglas template would best be served by limiting the prima facie showing of 'qualification' to relative objective qualifications.") These courts have reasoned that evaluations that a plaintiff lacks these qualities are more susceptible of abuse and more likely to mask pretext. "[S]ubjective decision making provides an opportunity for unlawful discrimination." Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Giglio v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
See, e.g., O’Connor v. Nevada, 507 F.Supp. 546 (D.Nev.1981), aff'd, 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982) (Nevada Supreme Court was dismissed from action seeking prospective injunctive relief on eleventh amendment grounds; Ex parte Young exception did not apply since the Nevada Supreme Court justices were not state officials but rather were “arms of the state itself”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wrenn v. Gould
See also Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Smalley v. City of Eatonville, 640 F.2d 765, 769 (5th Cir.1981); Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292, 1296 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 979 , 101 S.Ct. 1513 , 67 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981); Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
42 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1133, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,803 Curtis L. Wrenn, Cross-Appellee v. Sylvester M. Gould, Jr., Individually and as President, Cordelia Martin Health Center Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc., D/B/A Cordelia Martin Health Center, Cross-Appellants
See also Burrus v. United Telephone Co., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); Smalley v. City of Eatonville, 640 F.2d 765, 769 (5th Cir.1981); Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292, 1296 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 979 , 101 S.Ct. 1513 , 67 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981); Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United Artists Corp. & L.P.A.A., Marcello Danon v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Cel-A-Pak v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 680 F.2d 664, 668-69 (9th Cir.1982) (no significant new evidence in motion), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); National Industries, 677 F.2d at 1270 (insufficient response to a summary judgment motion).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Cross-Appellee v. Ideal Cement Company, Division of Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellant
See, e.g., McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, Int’l Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 491 , 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); LaVale Plaza, Inc., 378 F.2d at 573.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cel-A-Pak
v.
California Agricultural Labor Relations Board
v.
California Agricultural Labor Relations Board
No. 82-726.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 6, 1982.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Mexico (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.