green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
6.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 ·
…the court is not permitted to resolve genuine issues of material facts on a motion for summary judgment - even where ... both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Nepera Chemical, Inc. v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
bad faith exception to the american rule does not allow an award of attorney fees based only on bad faith in the conduct giving rise to the underlying claim
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pitman v. Aran
the court is not permitted to resolve genuine issues of material facts on a motion for summary judgment - even where ... both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Strauss v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center
the court is not permitted to resolve genuine issues of material facts on a motion for summary judgment - even where ... both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garelick v. Sullivan
In that case, the Court upheld Minnesota’s restrictions on rates nursing homes which participated in the State’s Medicaid program could charge to non-Medicaid residents, ruling that “nurs *114 ing homes, unlike public facilities, have freedom to decide whether to remain in business and thus subject themselves voluntarily to the limits imposed by Minnesota on the return they obtain from investment of their assets in nursing home operations.” Id. at 446.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Piedad Sanchez v. Bill Rowe, in His Individual and Official Capacities as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent
Corp., 663 F.2d 178 , 180-81 (D.C.Cir.1980)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 5.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985). 26 . 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b). 27 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitney v. Heckler
The Eighth Circuit, however, found that the Minnesota statute satisfied these requirements because "[t]he Minnesota legislature could reasonably find that differences in rates for the same nursing home services, depending wholly upon whether or not a resident receives medical assistance, are inimical to the public welfare, and thus it could properly choose to regulate the rates that nursing homes participating in Medicaid charge the residents who do not receive medical assistance." Id. at 447.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitney v. Heckler
The Eighth Circuit, however, found that the Minnesota statute satisfied these requirements because “[t]he Minnesota legislature could reasonably find that differences in rates for the same nursing home services, depending wholly upon whether or not a resident receives medical assistance, are inimical to the public welfare, and thus it could properly choose to regulate the rates that nursing homes participating in Medicaid charge the residents who do not receive medical assistance.” Id. at 447.
discussed
Cited "see"
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc.
See generally ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 48 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); Rose v. Vulcan Materials Co., 282 N.C. 643, 655-57 , 194 S.E.2d 521, 529-30 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.
See Shimman v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, 744 F.2d 1226,1229-30 (6th Cir.1984) (tracing the citation history of Vaughan), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Stephen T. Aguinaga v. United Food And Commercial Workers International Union
See Shimman v. International Union of Eng'rs, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226, 1234-35 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Aguinaga v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
See Shimman v. International Union of Eng’rs, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226, 1234-35 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael L. Burditt, M.D. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Its provision for sanctions against physicians who knowingly violate its requirements is merely an enforcement mechanism that does not alter its explicit assignment of duties. 96 Governmental regulation that affects a group's property interests "does not constitute a taking of property where the regulated group is not required to participate in the regulated industry." Whitney v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 963, 972 (11th Cir.) (temporary freeze of Medicare payments is no taking because physicians are not required to treat Medicare patients), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 813 , 107 S.Ct. 65 , 93 L.Ed.2d 23 (19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Burditt v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Governmental regulation that affects a group’s property interests “does not constitute a taking of property where the regulated group is not required to participate in the regulated industry.” Whitney v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 963, 972 (11th Cir.) (temporary freeze of Medicare payments is no taking because physicians are not required to treat Medicare patients), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 813 , 107 S.Ct. 65 , 93 L.Ed.2d 23 (1986); accord Minnesota Ass’n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Public Welfare, 742 F.2d 442, 446 (8th Cir. 1984) (state law limiting fees that nursing…
cited
Cited "see"
Murrow Furniture Galleries, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.
See ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 48 (4th Cir.1983), aff’d on rehearing, 742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Murrow Furniture Galleries, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.
See ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 48 (4th Cir.1983), aff'd on rehearing, 742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
AGI-Bluff Manor, Inc. v. Reagen
See Minnesota Ass’n. of Health Care Facilities v. Minnesota Dept. of Public Welfare, 742 F.2d 442, 449-50 (8th Cir.1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Good Neighbor Care Centers, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
See Minnesota Ass’n of Health Care Facilities v. Minnesota Dept. of Public Welfare, 742 F.2d 442 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barash v. Kates
See also Towerridge, Inc. v. T.A.O., Inc., 111 F.3d 758, 765-766 (10th Cir.1997) (noting that fees assessed pursuant to the inherent authority of the court are punitive in nature and are designed to punish the abuse of the judicial process rather than the original wrong) (citing Shimman v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 744 F.2d 1226 , 1232 n. 9 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496, 1502-03 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1046 , 116 S.Ct. 706 , 133 L.Ed.2d 662 (199…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bush v. Holmes
See, e.g., Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 , 1229 n. 3 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc) ("The law of the case doctrine ... does not impair the power of an en banc court to overrule any panel decision."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 590 F.2d 433 , 436-37 n. 9 (2d Cir.1978) (en banc) (law of the case doctrine cannot immunize panel decisions from review by the court en banc), aff'd, 444 U.S. 472 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); cf. United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 909 (9th Cir.1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schlank v. Williams
Compare, for example, Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 538 F.2d 53, 57-58 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979 , 97 S.Ct. 490 , 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976), with Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985). 23 In Synanon, this court pointed out that “the bad faith exception is intended to punish those who have abused the judicial process and to deter those who would do so in the future.” 517 A.2d at 37 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sergeant Perry Watkins v. United States Army
(2×)
See, e.g., Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 , 1229 n. 3 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc) (“The law of the case doctrine ... does not impair the power of an en banc court to overrule any panel decision."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 590 F.2d 433 , 436-37 n. 9 (2d Cir.1978) (en banc) (law of the case doctrine cannot immunize panel decisions from review by the court en banc), aff’d, 444 U.S. 472 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); cf. United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 909 (9th C…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ray A. Scharer and Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Plabell Rubber Products, Inc., Cross-Appellant
See also Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226, 1228-30 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Darla G. Hall, Patty J. Baxter and Jeannette Ticknor v. Gus Construction Co., Inc. And John Mundorf
See also Minnesota Ass’n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minnesota Dept. of Public Welfare, 742 F.2d 442, 445 (8th Cir.1984) (state constitutional claims were not advanced in second amended complaint, and court did not consider them on appeal), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); Federal Deposit Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bergman v. United States
The first is the “bad faith” exception, pursuant to which a court may award fees when “the losing party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’ ” Alyeska Pipeline Co., 421 U.S. at 258-59 , 95 S.Ct. at 1622 (citations omitted); see also Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226, 1228-34 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215 , 105 S.Ct. 1191 , 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Safir
v.
Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc.
v.
Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc.
No. 84-1042.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (2) · D.C. Circuit (1)
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.