green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
13.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1989 ·
…the unauthorized use of a trademark which has the effect of misleading the public to believe that the user is sponsored or approved by the registrant can constitute infringement.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Milgard Tempering, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Selas Corporation of America, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
(2×)
But see Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 , 1499 & n. 13 (11th Cir.1983) (dictum implied all attorneys’ fees clauses under Florida law are indemnification provisions and do not include payment for in-house counsel expenses), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Young v. Quinlan
the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Young, II v. Quinlan
the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Paramount Pictures v. Video Broadcasting Systems
(2×)
the unauthorized use of a trademark which has the effect of misleading the public to believe that the user is sponsored or approved by the registrant can constitute infringement.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
June M. Betts v. Hamilton County Board Of Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities
congress intended conciliation efforts under sec. 626(d) to be a strict condition precedent to the initiation of any litigation in federal courts," and "an absolute period of abstention by the federal judiciary.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Betts v. Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities
congress intended conciliation efforts under 626(d) to be a strict condition precedent to the initiation of any litigation in federal courts," and "an absolute period of abstention by the federal judiciary.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
General Electric Co. v. Speicher
thus, a trademark infringement case need not just involve imitation of the registrant's mark. the unauthorized use of a trademark which has the effect of misleading the public to believe that the user is sponsored or approved by the registrant can constitute infringement.
examined
Cited "see"
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson
(4×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1)(a)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Philadelphia Detention Center
Courts cannot impose their own ideas of “how best to operate a detention facility.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 . “[I]f a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal— if it is arbitrary or purposeless — a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 ; see Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 991 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (…
discussed
Cited "see"
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Joe A. Contreras, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee. In Re Circuit Breaker Litigation Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. Joe A. Contreras General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. The Estate of Charley Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Joe A. Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, and Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Joe A. Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, and Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. In Re Circuit Breaker Litigation Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Co. Xavier Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. Joe A. Contreras Pencon International, Inc. The Estate of Charley Contreras General Magnetics/electric Wholesale Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (holding franchisee liable for displaying the original Burger King marks after its right to do so had been revoked), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); El Greco Leather Prod.
discussed
Cited "see"
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc.
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (holding franchisee liable for displaying the original Burger King marks after its right to do so had been revoked), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); El Greco Leather Prod.
discussed
Cited "see"
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Hanover Insurance
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryson v. Fluor Corp.
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1011-12 (4th Cir.1983) (holding that the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII's 180-day administrative filing period provided “significant interpretive authority” for a similar provision under the ADEA), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Dynamics Corp.
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 707 F.2d 483, 489 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980) (stay appropriate in a Title VII case).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Town Of Highland Beach
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 100 Any confusion over the jury's damages award arose from the awkward and misleading special verdict forms, rather than from any deficiency of the evidence or the jury's misapprehension of that evidence, thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion. 101 Next, the Town contends that even if the damage award was not excessive, it fails to comport with the valuation requirements mandated in Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 833 F.2d 267 (11th Cir.19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Dale Strickler v. Gary Waters, Sheriff Commonwealth of Virginia City of Portsmouth Department of Corrections
See 452 U.S. at 346-47 , 101 S.Ct. at 2399 ; see abo Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984 , 999 n. 22 (3d Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hasenfus v. Secord
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eugene Hasenfus and Sally Hasenfus v. Richard Secord, an Individual, Corporate Air Services, a Pennsylvania Corporation Southern Air Transport, a Florida Corporation Albert Hakim, an Individual, Kasanee Sawyer, an Individual, Kasanee Sawyer, Administratrix of Sawyer, Wallace B., Deceased v. Richard Secord, an Individual, Corporate Air Services, Southern Air Transport, a Florida Corporation, Albert Hakim, an Individual
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 28 The district court committed no reversible error in the jury instructions or special verdict forms.
discussed
Cited "see"
James Yarbrough, Individually and as Next Friend of Robert Yarbrough, a Minor v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1488 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of America, Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of America
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1012 (4th Cir.1983) (citing Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U.S. 572, 596 , 100 S.Ct. 800, 813 , 63 L.Ed.2d 36 (1981)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephen E. Carswell, Cross-Appellant v. Bay County, Lavelle Pitts, William Grigsby, Graham Belz, Thomas G. Merrill, Cross-Appellees
(2×)
Regardless of this shortcoming, our review of the record and the jury’s verdict reveals no inconsistency. “[T]he Seventh Amendment demands that, if there is a view of the case which makes the jury’s answers consistent, this Court must adopt that view.” Aquachem Co., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 699 F.2d 516, 521 (11th Cir.1983); see Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Clayton v. Howard Johnson Franchise Systems, Inc.
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492-1493 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Downtowner/passport International Hotel Corporation v. Norlew, Inc. Little Rock Hotel Partners, Ltd. S & L Properties, Inc., General Partner
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983) (stating that “[c]ommon sense compels the conclusion that a strong risk of consumer confusion arises when a terminated franchisee continues to use the former franchisor’s trademarks”), cer t. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
William E. Wilson v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1013-14 (4th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 and 467 U.S. 1226 , 104 S.Ct. 2678 , 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984) (Widener, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nos. 85-2293, 85-2431
(2×)
See Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.1983) (Edwards ), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kile v. North Pacific Construction Co.
(2×)
See Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.1983) (Edwards), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Hendrick
(2×)
Moreover, "`the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.' Therefore a court can order only relief sufficient to correct the violation found." Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir.1982), quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 , 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1276 , 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); see Union *466 County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
King v. Arco Metals Co.
(2×)
Id.; accord, Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.1983), cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Monmouth County Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro
See Union County Jail Inmates v. Scanlon, 537 F.Supp. 993, 996 (D.N.J.1982), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 , reh. denied, 718 F.2d 1247 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas D. Klemens, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (CCH) B1715 (1984). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Graham Webb International Ltd. Partnership v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983) (falsely suggesting affiliation with trademark owner in a manner likely to cause confusion as to source or sponsorship constitutes infringement), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 514 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir.1975) (same); El Greco Leather Products Co., Inc. v. Shoe World, 806 F.2d 392, 395 (2nd Cir.1986) (finding trademark infringement where defendant sold plaintiffs uninspected shoes and inspection was integral part of plain…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoover v. Watson
It is clear that, in addition to the essential objective of insuring the detainee’s presence at trial, the government has legitimate interests which stem from its need to maintain institutional security and order and “to manage the facility in which the individual is detained.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 540 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 ; see also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 993 (3d Cir.1983) (“It is plain that there is a legitimate governmental interest in effective management of a detention facility.”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diamond Enterprises USA, Inc. v. Steinsvaag
(2×)
Compare Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1445-46 (10th Cir.1988) (jury compromise indicated by inadequate damages, close questions of liability and difficult deliberations) and Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat'l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 , 1514-15 (11th Cir.1983) (same) with Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764, 768-69 (1st Cir.1990) (affirming grant of partial new trial where only indication of juror compromise was inadequate damages award) and Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1487-88 (11th Cir.1983) (same), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 15 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diamond D Enterprises USA, Inc. v. Steinsvaag
(2×)
Compare Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1445-46 (10th Cir.1988) (jury compromise indicated by. inadequate damages, close questions of liability and difficult deliberations) and Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 , 1514-15 (11th Cir.1983) (same) with Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764, 768-69 (1st Cir.1990) (affirming grant of partial new trial where only indication of juror compromise was inadequate damages award) and Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1487-88 (11th Cir.1983) (same), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matrix Essential, Inc. v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 514 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cashie v. Harris Corp.
(2×)
See also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1423 ; see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 , 1489 n. 5 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (considerations for attorneys prior to discharge of jury); Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1005 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton Intern.
(2×)
Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1423 ; see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 , 1489 n. 5 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (considerations for attorneys prior to discharge of jury); Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1005 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hughes
See also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F. 2d 984 , rehearing den. 718 F. 2d 1247 (3d Cir.1983), cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Monmouth County Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro
See also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 997 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Knop v. Johnson
See id. at 348 , 101 S.Ct. at 2400 (noting that the district court had not found that double celling had increased “violence among inmates”); see also Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 , 999 (3d Cir.1983) (in evaluating whether inmates have been deprived of their right to habitable shelter, a court must consider “all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the shelter afforded to sentenced inmates”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Pernsley
See also, Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Pernsley
See also, Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Pernsley
See, e.g., Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 , 999 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guzman v. Van Demark
(2×)
Compare Glover v. United Grocers Inc., 746 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1984) (adopting six-month statute of limitations retroactively because it lengthened pre-existing period), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1115 , 105 S.Ct. 2357 , 86 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985), with Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (declining retroactive application of a shorter statute of limitations).” Gibson, 781 F.2d at 1339 n. 1. 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Home Box Office, Inc. v. Corinth Motel, Inc.
(2×)
See Professional Golfers Association v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 514 F.2d 665 (5th Cir.1975); see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gibson v. United States
(2×)
Compare Glover v. United Grocers Inc., 746 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1984) (adopting six-month statute of limitations retroactively because it lengthened pre-existing period), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2357 , 86 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985), with Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (declining retroactive application of a shorter statute of limitations) 2 The city defendants ask that we uphold the dismissal of the claims against the unnamed city agents on the ground that plaintiff's non-compliance…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gibson v. United States
(2×)
Compare Glover v. United Grocers Inc., 746 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1984) (adopting six-month statute of limitations retroactively because it lengthened pre-existing period), cert. denied — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 2357 , 86 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985), with Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (declining retroactive application of a shorter statute of limitations). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Otis Clapp & Son, Inc. v. Filmore Vitamin Company D/B/A Medique Products
(2×)
See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1493 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mason
v.
Burger King Corp.
v.
Burger King Corp.
No. 83-1197.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 19, 1984.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.