green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.2 score
“the requirement of f.r.a.p. 3(c) that a notice of appeal designate the judgment from which it is taken is not to be so strictly construed as to defeat an appeal where appellant's overriding intent to appeal is clear.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Moore v. Angela MV
he court can exercise as much authority over as if the vessel itself were in the custody of the court, but no more.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Xerox Corporation v. Genmoora Corp.
the requirement of f.r.a.p. 3(c) that a notice of appeal designate the judgment from which it is taken is not to be so strictly construed as to defeat an appeal where appellant's overriding intent to appeal is clear.
discussed
Cited "see"
Merritte
See Soderbeck v. Burnett Cnty, 752 F.2d 285 , 293 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 (1985) (“[f]ailure to take corrective action cannot in and of itself violate section 1983”); Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) (stating that “[p]ublic officials do not have a free-floating obligation to put things to rights[.]”).
discussed
Cited "see"
New York Life Insurance v. Deshotel
See Incas and Monterey Printing and Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V SANG JIN, 747 F.2d 958, 964 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom., Van Weelde Brothers Shipping Ltd. v. I.N.C.A.S., 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kemp
See United States v. Welden, 568 F.Supp. 516 (N.D.Ala.1983), rev’d sub nom, United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thulen v. Bausman
See Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 288-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985); Shondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 864 (7th Cir.1985) ("Everyone seems to have assumed that as the head of a major city department Kwolek must have been a policy-making officer, but we hesitate to so hold as a matter of law without any evidence about the structure of Hammond city government.”); Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164, 1169 (7th Cir.1981) ("the trial judge erred in deciding as a matter of law that Dumas did not occupy a policymaking position”), …
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Frederick
See Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 289 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Alvin Ray Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas
See Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V SANG JIN, 747 F.2d 958 , 963 n. 15 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1).
discussed
Cited "see"
Unity Ventures v. County Of Lake
Hence, his claim was not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. 27 Further, we have written that "a plaintiff's case that survives a motion for a directed verdict is not a frivolous suit." LeBeau, 799 F.2d at 1159 ; see Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 295 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Unity Ventures v. County of Lake
Further, we have written that “a plaintiff’s case that survives a motion for a directed verdict is not a frivolous suit.” LeBeau, 799 F.2d at 1159 ; see Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 295 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald A. Hairston, Sr.
See United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 840 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985). 6 In the instant case, the record provides an adequate basis upon which to review the district court’s restitution order.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Vasquez, A/K/A Ricardo Guzman
See United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 849 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985) (redaction of confession to substitute “people” for names of defendants did not violate Bruton).
cited
Cited "see"
Eliana Martinez, by and Through Her Next Friend, Rosa E. Martinez, Her Mother v. School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida, a Corporate Body Public
See Department of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Volk v. Coler
See, Soderbeck v. Burnett County, supra, 752 F.2d at 294 [7th Cir.1985], cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 . 50 638 F.Supp. at 1550. 51 We agree that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Volk, could establish that Tapen, Lohman and Ward were sufficiently personally involved in the alleged violations of her rights.
cited
Cited "see"
Volk v. Coler
See, Soderbeck v. Burnett County, supra, 752 F.2d [285] at 294 [7th Cir.1985], cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 . 638 F.Supp. at 1550.
discussed
Cited "see"
ca2 1987
See Department of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809 , 813-14 (9th Cir.1983) (the Act's requirements must be construed in light of the reality of limited public funding), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985); Age v. Bullitt County Pub.
discussed
Cited "see"
A.W. ex rel. N.W. v. Northwest R-1 School District
See Department of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809 , 813-14 (9th Cir.1983) (the Act’s requirements must be construed in light of the reality of limited public funding), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985); Age v. Bullitt County Pub.
cited
Cited "see"
De Smet v. Snyder
See Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Padilla v. School District No. 1
Comm., 59 F.Supp.2d 237, 244 (D.Mass. 1999) (stating that garden variety, violations of the IDEA cannot form the basis of a § 1983 claim); compare Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610, 621-22 (7th Cir.1997) (stating § 1983 may be used to enforce the IDEA), with Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205 , 1214-17 (7th Cir.1981) (prohibiting IDEA-based § 1983 claims); compare Emma C. v. Eastin, 985 F.Supp. 940, 945 (N.D.Cal.1997) (holding that Congress “specifically authorized § 1983 actions predicated on the IDEA”), with Dept. of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 819-20 (9th Cir. 1983), cert, d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Result Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Ferruzzi Trading USA Inc.
Compare Solomon v. Bruchhausen, 305 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1962) (claim for abuse of process may not be asserted as cross-libel under old Admiralty Rules), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 951 , 83 S.Ct. 506 , 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963), with Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang Jin, 747 F.2d 958 , 965 & n. 19 (5th Cir.1984) (suggesting that Solomon rule against joinder of wrongful attachment counterclaim might no longer be valid under Supplemental Rules), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles Stephen Martin
Compare United States v. Johnson, 741 F.2d 1338 , 1340 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985). *745 Martin argues that a number of circumstances negate this probable cause — Duna-gun’s description of the robber was too vague; Martin’s appearance, particularly his ponytail hair style, is inconsistent with Duna-gun’s characterization of the robber as “clean cut”; and Dunagun and the two store clerks failed to identify Martin from a photograph lineup.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ford
See also United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 ________ _____________ ___________ (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 (1985) _____ ______ (adopting similar rule); United States v. Romero, 692 F.2d _____________ ______ -10- 10 699 (10th Cir. 1982) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ford
See also United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985) (adopting similar rule); United States v. Romero, 692 F.2d 699 (10th Cir.1982) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. John W.S. McCormick Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 833-36 (11th Cir.1984) (discussing the restitutionary purpose of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3579 and 3580, the predecessors of current §§ 3663 and 3664), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985); see also U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1 and commentary thereto (expressing strong policy favoring restitution).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hall v. Marion School District No. 2
Praprotnik , at 127, 108 S.Ct. at 926 (emphasis added in part); see also Soderbeck v. Burnett County, Wis., 752 F.2d 285, 293-94 (7th Cir.) (holding, inter alia, whether law enforcement committee [final policymaker] exposed county to § 1983 liability by participating in or ratifying sheriffs firing of subordinate was question for jury), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985); Thompson v. Bd. of Educ., 711 F.Supp. 394, 411-13 (N.D.Ill.1989) (holding, inter alia, that municipality is liable under § 1983 when school board retains authority to review and ratify supe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oberti Ex Rel. Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District
See, e.g., Department of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 813 (9th Cir.1983) (aide ordered for child with cystic fibrosis), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985). 16 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oberti Ex Rel. Oberti v. Board of Education
See, e.g., Department of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 813 (9th Cir.1983) (aide ordered for child with cystic fibrosis), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James C. Matlock v. Thomas v. Barnes, in His Capacity as the Mayor of the City of Gary
See also Soderbeek v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir.1985) (jury question exists as to whether political affiliation is proper qualification for job as sheriff's secretary in six-person office), certiorari denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor, Taylor v. Honig
Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District v. Sharron B.H., 709 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1983) (relying on Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (7th Cir.1981)); see, e.g., Department of Education State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 816-17 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985) (relying on Anderson, 658 F.2d at 1210-11 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. Honig
Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District v. Sharron B.H., 709 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1983) (relying on Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (7th Cir.1981)); see, e.g., Department of Education State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 816-17 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985) (relying on Anderson, 658 F.2d at 1210-11 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Doughty
(2×)
United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196, 1204 (5th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Eason
(2×)
See also United States v Satterfield, 743 F2d 827, 840 (CA 11, 1984), cert den 471 US 1117 (1985). [18] The holding of Williams represented a divergence from another seminal sentencing decision decided in the previous year, Townsend v Burke, 334 US 736 ; 68 S Ct 1252 ; 92 L Ed 1690 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Don E. Warfield, Carl Lee Conner, Curtiss Gilmore Conner and Charles Bennett Conner v. Fidelity and Deposit Company
See also Ingraham v. United States, 808 F.2d 1075, 1080 (5th Cir.1987) and Incas and Monterey Printing v. M/V Sang Jin, 747 F.2d 958 , 963 n. 15 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Xerox Corp. v. Genmoora Corp.
See, e.g., Incas and Monterey Printing and Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V SANG JIN, 747 F.2d 958 , 963 n. 15 (5th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2361 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985) ("The requirement of F.R.A.P. 3(c) that a notice of appeal designate the judgment from which it is taken is not to be so strictly construed as to defeat an appeal where appellant's overriding intent to appeal is clear.”), citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
James D. Thomas v. John Carpenter
See also Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2360 , 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bailey v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 847-48 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1985); Petrilli v. United States, 129 F.2d 101, 104 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 657 , 63 S.Ct. 55 , 87 L.Ed. 528 (1942); United States v. Vastola, 670 F.Supp. 1244, 1256 (D.N.J.1987); United States v. Payden, 613 F.Supp. 800, 823-24 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (admission of alias permissible if relevant to charge, no matter how prejudicial).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Walker
See also United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 846-46 (11th Cir.) (requiring that “the lawful means which made discovery inevitable were possessed by police and were being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the illegal conduct”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 , 105 S.Ct. 2362 , 86 L.Ed.2d 262 (1984); accord United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196, 1204 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 932 , 93 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
Amis
v.
Steele, Lee County Tax Collector
v.
Steele, Lee County Tax Collector
No. 84-1548.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 20, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.