green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. New York Racing Ass'n
See Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34, 36 (2d Cir.1982) (“The Act does not forbid essential corporate belt-tightening having no discriminatory motivation.’?) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983); Morser v. AT & T Information Systems, 715 F.Supp. 516 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (no evidence of age discrimination in the midst of an overall reduction in workforce).
cited
Cited "see"
Orisek v. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
See Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983); Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60, 67 (2d Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Lavon Bumpass
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
James M. Cronin v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
See Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Birch v. West
(2×)
See Birch v. Lehman, 677 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir.1982) (finding EEOC notice "clearly notified” Birch administrative action "final” and affirming district court’s dismissal of her suit as untimely filed), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nigel D. Ince
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 234 (4th Cir.1982) (citing and affirming United States v. MacDonald, 486 F.Supp. 1087, 1093-94 (E.D.N.C.1979)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); see also United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1193 (7th Cir.1984) (stating that the defendant may “argue that the probative value of the evidence offered to impeach the witness is clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact it might have on the jury, because the jury would have difficulty confining use of *581 the evidence to impeachment”) (citing Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Vunzell Bobo, Jr.
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (declarant’s long history of drug use made her an “inherently unreliable witness”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paul K. Raditch, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
(2×)
See Weiss v. Lehman, 676 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983). 3 As in Hudson and Parratt , no predepri-vation procedure could have prevented the unauthorized violation of the OWCP’s established procedures in this case. 4 The Government was able to address the error only after it occurred.
cited
Cited "see"
Slade v. Taylor
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pryba
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir.1982) (“appraisal of the probative and prejudicial value of evidence under Rule 403 is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); see also United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 553-55 (9th Cir.1985) (district court enjoys wide discretion in performing Rule 403 weighing process).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mcvey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary Of State Of Illinois
See County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128-35 (2nd Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (Congress may create a cause of action against a state under its extradition powers.); Peel v. Florida, 600 F.2d 1070, 1074-82 (5th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the War Powers Clauses permitted); Mills Music v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the Copyright and Patent Clause permitted). 9 Despite the acceptance of our approach in Jennings, two recent Supreme Court cases may have called its holding into …
discussed
Cited "see"
McVey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary of Illinois
See County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128-35 (2nd Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (Congress may create a cause of action against a state under its extradition powers.); Peel v. Florida, 600 F.2d 1070, 1074-82 (5th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the War Powers Clauses permitted); Mills Music v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the Copyright and Patent Clause permitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Chamber of Commerce of United States
See Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34, 36 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983); Everett, 33 F.E.P. at 794-95.
cited
Cited "see"
B.H. Papasan, Superintendent of Education v. United States of America
See County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1130-31 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Constantine T. Kepreos
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 227-28 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Margaret Elaine Wilkinson, A/K/A \Jane Doe\"
See United States v. McDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilkinson
See United States v. McDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983)..
discussed
Cited "see"
Ards v. State
See generally United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); United States v. Bagley, 537 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1075 , 97 S.Ct. 816 , 50 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Morton v. State
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Williams
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard of review).
discussed
Cited "see"
Covington v. Winger
(2×)
See Weiss v. Lehman, 676 F.2d 1320 (CA 9 1982), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); Parker v. Rockefeller, 521 F.Supp. 1013 (N.D.W.Va.1981) .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Schiappa
Ed. 2d 674 (1996) (hearsay exception for former testimony, which requires unavailability, permits admission of former testimony when physically available and competent witness becomes legally “unavailable” due to full or partial memory loss); Commonwealth v. Graves, 484 Pa. 29, 38 , 398 A.2d 644 (1979) (proper for court to admit former testimony where declarant has partial memory loss because “necessary testimony is admitted with the opponent being permitted to cross-examine the [declarant] both as to his asserted lack of memory as well as to his present testimony”); see also United St…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morehead Marine Services, Inc. v. Washnock
Petrs' Br. at 28; see also Director, OWCP v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836, 840 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); Equitable Equip.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morehead Marine Services, Inc. v. Washnock
Petrs’ Br. at 28; see also Director, OWCP v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836, 840 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); Equitable Equip.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metsopulos v. Runyon
(2×)
Compare Nordell v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 47 (D.C.Cir.1984) (denial of reconsideration constitutes final action) and Donaldson v. T.V.A., 759 F.2d 535 (6th Cir.1985) (same) with Mahroom v. Defense Language Institute, 732 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.1984) (denial by Commission was final action “unaltered by a request for reconsideration”) and Birch v. Lehman, 677 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Health Care Plan, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
See California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287 , 101 S.Ct. 1775 , 68 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981); Reeves, 912 F.2d at 42 ; see also County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Joyner v. Garrett
(2×)
The Halus court stated that “[a]n aggrieved employee may not, for example, appeal to the EEOC forty days after notice from the MSPB, await the EEOC’s rejection of his petition as untimely, then file suit in district court based on the EEOC’s determination not to consider the claim.” Id.; see also Birch v. Lehman, 677 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 725 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983). 6 In the present case, plaintiff failed to take proper, timely action following the MSPB final disposition of her case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 433, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,143 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Sperry Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
It held, " '[T]he ADEA mandates that an employer reach employment decisions without regard to age, but it does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group.' " Id. at 1217 (quoting Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1439 , 71 L.Ed.2d 655 (1982)); see also Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1982) ("[t]he ADEA does not require an employer to accord special treatment to employees over forty years of age."), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sperry Corp.
It held, “ ‘[T]he ADEA mandates that an employer reach employment decisions without regard to age, but it does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group.’ ” Id. at 1217 (quoting Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1439 , 71 L.Ed.2d 655 (1982)); see also Parcinski v. Outlet Co., 673 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1982) (“[t]he ADEA does not require an employer to accord special treatment to employees over forty years of age.”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 110…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rufener
(2×)
See also United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 123 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Acklin
Supp. 1985); see also United States v. MacDonald, 688 F. 2d 224 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 951 (1983) (construing Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Garroutte v. State
See also United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marine Management, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Compare, in another context (the Federal Extradition Act), the decision in County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1134 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, A/K/A the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, A/K/A the Oneida Indians of New York the Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin, A/K/A the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Inc. And the Oneida of the Thames Band Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. The County of Oneida, New York and the County of Madison, New York, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. State of New York, Third Party
The Court found that Congress had conditioned operation of a railroad on acceptance of potential FELA liability and any damage suits arising therefrom; by starting the railroad after the FELA had been enacted, Alabama had constructively consented to a waiver of its immunity. 377 U.S. at 192 , 84 S.Ct. at 1212 ; see also County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1133 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida
The Court found that Congress had conditioned operation of a railroad on acceptance of potential FELA liability and any damage suits arising therefrom; by starting the railroad after the FELA had been enacted, Alabama had constructively consented to a waiver of its immunity. 377 U.S. at 192 , 84 S.Ct. at 1212 ; see also County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1133 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Weiss
v.
Lehman
v.
Lehman
No. 82-532.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 1983.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.