green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.1 score
“it is an elementary principle of issue preclusion that it may only be asserted where the burden of proof as to is no greater than it was in the prior proceeding where the issue was decided”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Roberti (In Re Roberti)
it is an elementary principle of issue preclusion that it may only be asserted where the burden of proof as to is no greater than it was in the prior proceeding where the issue was decided
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
O.K. Sand & Gravel, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Martin Marietta Technologies, Incorporated
we must look to the instructions as a whole, in a common sense manner ... inquiring whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor v. Joseph P. Mazzola, Robert E. Buckley, Robert J. Costello, Etc.
rylander ii
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 787 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Freiman v. Lazur, 925 F.Supp. 14, 24 (D.D.C.1996); Environmental Research Int’l., Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d at 813 .
discussed
Cited "see"
National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Blanck
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. at 378 , 102 S.Ct. at 1839 ; Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575 , 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2488-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979); see Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789-90 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Jackie Wilson v. James K. Williams
See Wilk v. American Medical Ass’n, 719 F.2d 207, 218 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John A. Voss, United States of America v. Mitchell S. Beals, United States of America v. Brent L. Beals
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1002-03 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 22 Rectangular or Cylindrical Finished Devices
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also Eisenberg v. University of New Mexico, 936 F.2d 1131 , 1137 (10th Cir.1991); Yates v. United States, 316 F.2d 718, 723 (10th Cir. 1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Norris
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 998, 1004 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also, Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) absent an express statute, there is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. Mobile Cty. Appointing Board
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) ("[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).11 II.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. State Of Alabama
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) ("[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984). 11 II. 9 Appellants contend that the plaintiffs failed to allege, or to demonstrate, the violation of a right "secured by the Constitution" as required under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. Alabama ex rel. Evans
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) (“[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise.”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984). 11 II.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hemmerle v. Bakst (In Re Sun-Island Realty, Inc.)
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 998, 1004 (9th Cir. *397 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also, Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) (absent an express statute, there is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings).
discussed
Cited "see"
Horowitz v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 792, n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300 (3d Cir.1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 782 (D.C.Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
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 Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 782 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rita J. Minnette v. Time Warner
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); 15 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3827, at 261-62 (2d ed. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hospital
See Wilk v. American Medical Association, 719 F.2d 207 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 2399, 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
See, Wilk v. American Medical Association, 719 F.2d 207 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 2399, 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984) (where chiropractors sued medical association for damages resulting from association’s refusal to deal with chiropractors, the court, in reversing a trial verdict in favor of defendants, noted that it could find that members of an association promulgated guidelines sanctioning conduct in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bobby R. Savage v. Wayne Estelle, Warden
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983) ("The preferred procedure is for the district judge to ensure that a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently by discussing with the defendant, on the record, the nature of the charges, the possible penalties, and the dangers of self-representation."), cer t. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bobby R. Savage v. Wayne Estelle, Warden
See United States v. Ry-lander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983) ("The preferred procedure is for the district judge to ensure that a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently by discussing with the defendant, on the record, the nature of the charges, the possible penalties, and the dangers of self-representation."), cer t. denied, 467 U.S. 1209, 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Denkmann Associates v. International Paper Co.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Clark, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Doty v. St.
cited
Cited "see"
James W. Menefield v. Robert G. Borg, Warden
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Kitterman
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1004 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Clements Distributing Co. of Virginia v. Celebrity Products, Inc.
D.C.Code § 13-423(b); see Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 542 F.Supp. 1196, 1199 (D.D.C.1982), aff’d, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Chicago International v. United Exchange Co., Ltd.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 785 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984) (§ 13-423(a)(l) does not confer specific personal jurisdiction where the claims asserted are "unrelated to the acts forming the basis for personal jurisdiction").
cited
Cited "see"
Struth v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
See Antonelli v. F.B.I., 721 F.2d 615, 619 (7th Cir.1983), cert, denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kent B. Crane v. Archie Carr, III
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 786-87 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Investment Co. Inst. v. United States, 550 F.Supp. 1213, 1216 (D.D.C.1982) (relationships with federal *762 agencies did not enter into the personal jurisdiction calculus).
discussed
Cited "see"
Melvin D. Reuber v. United States of America
(2×)
See Naartex Consulting Corp., v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 788 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, State of Texas, Intervenor
See pp. 1152-53, infra. Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chase v. Pan-Pacific Broadcasting, Inc.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 787 (D.C.Cir.1983) (certain “conclusory statements] [do] not constitute the prima facie showing necessary to carry the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Holfield v. Power Chemical Co., Inc., 382 F.Supp. at 390 (“Mere averments of jurisdiction are not enough nor may conclusory unsupported statements contained in the accompanying affidavits be relied upon to demonstrate jurisdiction.”). b.
discussed
Cited "see"
Unification Church v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 794 (D.C.Cir.1983) (claim), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Sedgwick v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 584 F.2d 1044 , 1045 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1978) (appeal), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 849 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Laborers' International Union of North America v. United States Department of Justice
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 788 (D.C.Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Doe v. District of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115, 1119 (D.C.Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold M. Johnson v. United States Department of Justice
See Antonelli v. FBI, 721 F.2d 615, 617 (7th Cir. 1983) , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 823-28 . *1517 In this case, the FBI met its initial burden by Special Agent Berndt’s declaration and by the district court’s in camera inspection of the documents.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States
Co. v. England, 313 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2002) (discussing the interrelationship of these statutes). .See Sun Cal, Inc. v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 31, 37 (1990) (applying the holding in Beaconwear to a CDA claim); Rodgers Constr., Inc., 92-1 B.C.A. ¶ 24,503 (1991) (same); Fireman’s Fund/Underwater Constr., Inc., 87-3 B.C.A. ¶ 20,007 (1987) (same); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 794 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Tuftco Corp. v. United States, 614 F.2d 740 , 744 n. 4 (Ct.Cl.1980); Kenrich Corp. v. Miller, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott v. Michigan
See, e.g., Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating that the doctrine applies "only to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise"), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott v. Michigan
See, e.g., Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) (stating that the doctrine applies “only to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
S. Kadic, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Infant Sons Benjamin and Ognjen, Internationalna Iniciativa Zena Bosne I Hercegovine \Biser
Karadzic analogizes his proposed rule to the "government contacts exception" to the District of Columbia's long-arm statute, which has been broadly characterized to mean that "mere entry [into the District of Columbia] by non-residents for the purpose of contacting federal government agencies cannot serve as a basis for in personam jurisdiction," Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368, 1370 (D.C.1978); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 785-87 (D.C.Cir.1983) (construing government contacts exception to District of Columbia's long-arm statute), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kadic v. Karadžić
Karadzic analogizes his proposed rule to the “government contacts exception” to the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute, which has been broadly characterized to mean that “mere entry [into the District of Columbia] by non-residents for the purpose of contacting federal government agencies cannot serve as a basis for in personam jurisdiction,” Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368, 1370 (D.C.1978); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 785-87 (D.C.Cir.1983) (construing government contacts exception to District of Columbia’s long-arm statute), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 12…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH
See, e.g., Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 788 (D.C.Cir.1983) (“[A] district court has broad discretion in its resolution of discovery problems that arise in cases pending before it.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alvie James Hale, Jr. v. United States Department of Justice, and Its Component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
See Burge, 934 F.2d at 580 ; see also Antonelli v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 721 F.2d 615, 619 (7th Cir.1983) (“The contention that ‘the public shares [the requester’s] interest in ensuring that his convictions were not obtained as a result of a violation of the Constitution’ is [an] insufficient [public interest].”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale J. Doerr, John Paul Doerr, Josephine Christofalos, Christa D. Pixley, and Archie J. Pixley
United States v. Thibodeaux, 758 F.2d 199, 202 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Croft, 750 F.2d 1354, 1366 (7th Cir.1984)); see also General Leaseways, Inc. v. National Truck Leasing Ass’n, 830 F.2d 716, 725 (7th Cir.1987). (jury instructions must be construed in a “ ‘common sense manner, avoiding fastidiousness, inquiring whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well’ ”) (quoting Wilk v. American Medical Ass’n, 719 F.2d 207, 218 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hecht v. Don Mowry Flexo Parts, Inc.
See, e.g., United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983) (anything over $500 is serious for an individual), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); In re Reehlman, 763 F.2d 670 (5th Cir.) (seriousness of fine depends on individual’s resources), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 594 , 88 L.Ed.2d 573 (1985); United States v. Troxler Hosiery Co., 681 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1982) (seriousness of fine against corporation depends on circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hermandad-Union De Empleados Del Fondo Del Seguro Del Estado v. Monge
Compare Mattas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 576 F.Supp. 1178, 1184-85 (W.D.Pa.1983), with Wood v. Or *102 ange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); and Rogers v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 590 F.Supp. 102 , 108 n. 2 (E.D.Va.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wilk
v.
American Medical Assn. and American Medical Assn. v. Wilk
v.
American Medical Assn. and American Medical Assn. v. Wilk
No. 83-1455; No. 83-1602.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 21, 1984.
Consideration, Petitions, Took, White.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice White and Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.Reported below: 719 F. 2d 207.