green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.3 score
“he finality requirement does not necessarily demand the ministerial act of executing a judgment. it does not elevate form over substance in 11 that fashion--the accurate definition of 'finality' in the offensive collateral estoppel context is 'fully litigated.”
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown
he finality requirement does not necessarily demand the ministerial act of executing a judgment. it does not elevate form over substance in 11 that fashion--the accurate definition of 'finality' in the offensive collateral estoppel context is 'fully litigated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation
the good negotiator in the fixed market would presumably have gotten an even better 'deal' in a competitive market.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Trust Co. v. Executive Life Insurance
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 521 F.Supp. 104 & 521 F.Supp. 118 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd in part, 691 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc., Advo System, Inc. Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc. Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc., Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 691 F.2d 1039 , 1048 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983) (noting that the provisions of standardized securities contracts "do not depend on the particularized intentions of the parties").
discussed
Cited "see"
Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc.
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 691 F.2d 1039 , 1048 (2d Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983) (noting that the provisions of standardized securities contracts “do not depend on the particularized intentions of the parties”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fred Sanders
See id. (no error in failing to declare mistrial when jury announced deadlock after only two days' deliberation). 61 With regard to the claim that reading the Silvern instruction had a coercive effect on the jury, we have recently noted that "[t]he relevant inquiry, under Silvern, ... is 'whether "the court's communications pressured the jury to surrender their honest opinions for the mere purpose of returning a verdict." ' " Kramer, 955 F.2d at 489 (quoting United States v. Thibodeaux, 758 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Hamann, 688 F.2d 507, 511 (7th Cir.1982), cert. d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Wellons, Inc., a Corporation v. T.E. Ibberson Company and Ibberson Engineering, Inc., Formerly Known as Kibcor Engineering, Inc., Corporations
See Chemetron Corp. v. Business Funds, Inc., 682 F.2d 1149, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1982), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 460 U.S. 1007 , 103 S.Ct. 1245 , 75 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), initial opinion adhered to on remand, 718 F.2d 725 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 , 103 S.Ct. 1254 , 75 L.Ed.2d 483 (1983) (plaintiff, not a party to prior suit, can invoke offensive collateral estoppel against defendant when prior case has been fully litigated but settled before entry of final judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Saltzman v. Noroton Heights Enterprises Corp. (In Re Noroton Heights Enterprises Corp.)
(2×)
See Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 648 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (7th Cir.1981) cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 , 103 S.Ct. 1254 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983); 2 A Moore’s Federal Practice If 12.07[2.-5], at 12-68 (2d ed. 1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Bobby Dean Triplett, Jr. v. Nathan A. Rice, Warden, Attorney General of North Carolina
See Tweety v. Mitchell, 682 F.2d 461, 464 (4th Cir.1982),cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 (1983). 6 In addition, the admission of this evidence did not violate his constitutional rights.
cited
Cited "see"
United States Trust Co. v. Executive Life Insurance
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States Trust Company Of New York v. Executive Life Insurance Co.
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Leonor Guzman, A/K/A Felicitas Flores
See United States v. Hamann, 688 F.2d 507, 513 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied 460 U.S. 1013 , 103 S.Ct. 1255 , 75 L.Ed.2d 483 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Epperson v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Hamann, 688 F.2d 507 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 , 103 S.Ct. 1255 , 75 L.Ed.2d 483 (1983); United States v. Brown, 634 F.2d 1069 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Gabriel, 597 F.2d 95 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 858 , 100 S.Ct. 120 , 62 L.Ed.2d 78 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.
See Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039, 1048-49 (2d Cir.1982) (applying New York law), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983); cf. Broad v. Rockwell International Corp., 642 F.2d 929, 946-48 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (applying New York law), (interpretation of unambiguous contract provision is function for the court rather than the jury) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 965 , 102 S.Ct. 506 , 70 L.Ed.2d 380 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re E.F. Hutton Southwest Properties Ii, Ltd.
See also Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039, 1053 (2d Cir.1982) ("[i]t is not unjust enrichment [for an indenture trustee] to earn interest on a sum which is the subject of future or pending litigation absent contractual provisions directing otherwise."), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
E.F. Hutton Southwest Properties II, Ltd. v. Union Planters National Bank (In re E.F. Hutton Southwest Properties II, Ltd.)
See also Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039, 1053 (2d Cir.1982) (“[i]t is not unjust enrichment [for an indenture trustee] to earn interest on a sum which is the subject of future or pending litigation absent contractual provisions directing otherwise.”), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012 , 103 S.Ct. 1253 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perniciaro v. Natale (In Re Natale)
(2×)
Moore, supra, at 12-68; see, e.g., Cannon v. University of Chicago, 648 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 981 , 71 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013 , 103 S.Ct. 1254 , 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marquez
v.
University of Washington
v.
University of Washington
No. 82-1149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 28, 1983.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1) · D. Vermont (1)
Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.