green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mather
(2×)
See Castaldi v. United States, 783 F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S. Ct. 2897 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Kent v. SunAmerica Life Insurance
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 130 (1st Cir.1985), cert, denied 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John E. McGee
See United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985 , 990 n. 3 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); O’Donnell v. Georgia Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 748 F.2d 1543 , 1547 n. 6 (11th Cir.1984), overruled on other grounds by Lindsey v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 810 F.2d 1094 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Guckenberger v. Boston University
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 131 (1st Cir.1985) (holding that the judge’s restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Mitre Corp.
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 139 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Caroline C. v. Johnson
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
M.L.L. v. Wessman
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 137 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); O’Reilly v. New York Times Co., 692 F.2d 863, 867 (2d Cir.1982); In re Las Colinas Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Adoption of JSPL
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 137 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); O'Reilly v. New York Times Co., 692 F.2d 863, 867 (2d Cir.1982); In re Las Colinas Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Lee Williams
See Castaldi v. United States, *79 783 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2897 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986) (sentence within statutory limit is generally not subject to review unless the district court manifestly or grossly abused its discretion). 3 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 1 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Skelton
See United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985, 993 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 , 479 U.S. 831 , 107 S.Ct. 117 , 93 L.Ed.2d 63 (1986). 21 Ultimately it decided that a new trial was required for several reasons: 22 First, the allegations and evidence of possible juror bias are troubling.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Skelton
See United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985, 993 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 , 479 U.S. 831 , 107 S.Ct. 117 , 93 L.Ed.2d 63 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Tolan v. Computervision Corp.
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Gaynell McCuin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
See Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 130 (1st Cir.1985), cert. den., _ U.S. _, 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jeffrey Leisure
See Castaldi v. United States, 783 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir.) (citing Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139, 147 (8th Cir.1973) (en banc)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2897 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Violette v. P.A. Days, Inc.
(2×)
Numerosity Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1) requires plaintiffs to show first that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable____” There is no bright line numerical test by which the district court can determine when the numerosity requirement is satisfied, and the Sixth Circuit has noted that a class does not require any specific number of members: “Impracticability of joinder is not determined according to a strict numerical test but upon the circumstances surrounding the case.” Senter, 532 F.2d at 523 n. 24; see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 131…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McCree v. Sam's Club
See also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 131-32 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Arik Ben Bachsian, A/K/A Eric Bustamante
Generally, for evidence to be admissible under Rule 803(24), notice of reliance upon the rule must be given “sufficiently in advance of the trial ... to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet [the evidence].” Fed.R.Evid. 803(24); see also United States v. Brown, 770 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 603 , 88 L.Ed.2d 581 , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1067 , 106 S.Ct. 822 , 88 L.Ed.2d 795 (1985), and cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp.
There is no bright line numerical test by which the district court can determine when the numerosity requirement is satisfied, and the Sixth Circuit has noted that a class does not require any specific number of members: “Impracticability of joinder is not determined according to a strict numerical test but upon the circumstances surrounding the case.” Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir.1976); see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 131 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William Belber v. Charles S. Lipson, M.D., D/B/A Metromedic Walk in Medical Center, Appeal of W. Robert Felix, Jr., M.D.
See, e.g., Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 140 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986) (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 835 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 2541 n. 46, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)) (“It is impossible for an appellate court to review a non-existent district court ruling.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vincent v. Musone
We have recognized that mere delay is an insufficient ground for denial of an amendment, Inleasing Corp. v. Jessup, 475 A.2d 989, 992 (R.I.1984); however, “undue and excessive delay that causes prejudice to the opposing party is grounds for denial.” Faerber, 568 A.2d at 329 (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice II 15.08(4)); see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 139 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); Carter v. Supermarkets General Corp., 684 F.2d 187, 192 (1st Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gould v. Sullivan
There is no bright line numerical test by which the district court can determine when the numerosity requirement is satisfied, and the Sixth Circuit has noted that a class does not require any specific number of members: “Impracticability of joinder is not determined according to a strict numerical test but upon the circumstances surrounding the case.” Senter, 532 F.2d at 523 n. 24; see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 131 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert L. Glidden v. Chromalloy American Corporation and Allied Products Corporation
Rule 23(a)(1); see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 130-31 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986) (49 is not so numerous that class must be certified).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCafferty
v.
South Dakota
v.
South Dakota
No. 85-6699.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 9, 1986.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.