green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William Harlan, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Danielle Harlan, a Minor Genice Harlan, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Danielle Harlan, a Minor v. James S. Lewis, M.D., Calvin J. Hall, C.E. Ransom, Jr., M.D., Movant. William Harlan, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Danielle Harlan, a Minor Genice Harlan, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Danielle Harlan, a Minor v. James S. Lewis, M.D., Calvin J. Hall, C.E. Ransom, Jr., Doctor, Movant
Id. at 88. 42 Finally, beyond the issue of adequate notice, the district court fully complied with due process.
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Stoller v. Ford Motor Co.
See Smith International, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1578-79 , 225 U.S.P.Q. 889 , 893-94 *512 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 87 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc. And American Appliance Mfg. Corp.
See Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1578-79 , 225 USPQ 889, 893-94 (Fed.Cir.) (affirming district court’s holding that “factual issues finally laid to rest by the Ninth Circuit” were law of the case and could not be reopened), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 87 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Betts v. State
See United States v. Schmidt, 760 F.2d 828, 836 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 86 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dethmers Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co.
See Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1582 , 31 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1018 , 115 S.Ct. 581 , 130 L.Ed.2d 496 (1994); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 , 221 USPQ 669, 679 (Fed.Cir.) (departures from the law of the case doctrine occur “very infrequently”; the clearly erroneous/manifest injustice exception is “stringent” and requires a “strong showing of clear error”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); see also Smith Intern., Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576-80 , 225 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes Aircraft Company v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant
(2×)
See Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1582 , 31 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 582 , 130 L.Ed.2d 496 (1994); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 , 221 USPQ 669, 679 (Fed.Cir.) (departures from the law of the case doctrine occur "very infrequently"; the clearly erroneous/manifest injustice exception is "stringent" and requires a "strong showing of clear error"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 , 105 S.Ct. 187 , 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); see also Smith Intern., Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576-80 , 225 USPQ 889, 891…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
W. Douglas Williams v. Honorable Jack Brooks
(2×)
See also Lepucki v. Van Wormer, 765 F.2d 86, 88-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 86 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985) (libel properly removed under section 1442(a)(1)); Stein-Sapir v. Birdsell, 673 F.2d 165 (6th Cir.1982) (same; libel and slander); Poss v. Lieberman, 299 F.2d 358, 359 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 944 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 810 (1962) (same; libel); Malone v. Longo, 463 F.Supp. 139, 141-42 (E.D.N.Y.1979) (same; libel and slander); Abrams v. Playle, 414 F.Supp. 634, 636 (D.Guam 1976) (same; slander).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James J. Lyons
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Schmidt, 760 F.2d 828, 834-35 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 86 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985); United States v. Schuster, 734 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189 , 105 S.Ct. 959 , 83 L.Ed.2d 965 (1984); United States v. Robertson, 698 F.2d 703, 707-09 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Stalder, 696 F.2d 59 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Lawson, 682 F.2d 1012 (D.C.Cir.1982); Witherspoon v. United States, 633 F.2d 1247 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 1396 , 67 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Berkin v. Orland Park Plaza Bank
App. 3d 568 , 481 N.E.2d 1050 ; see also Lepucki v. Van Wormer (7th Cir. 1985), 765 F.2d 86, 88 (although Rule 11 proceedings must comport with due process, “[t]he particular format to be followed should depend on the circumstances of the situation and the severity of the sanction under consideration”), cert, denied (1985), 474 U.S. 827 , 88 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
J.E.T.S., Inc. v. The United States
See also Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 , 106 S.Ct. 87 , 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985); Gindes v. United States, 740 F.2d 947, 950 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1074 , 105 S.Ct. 569 , 83 L.Ed.2d 509 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hyde
v.
Van Wormer
v.
Van Wormer
No. 84-1993.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.