green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Arthur Mahn v. Frank Gunter Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of the State of Colorado
Ct. 672, 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
2255 New York Avenue, Ltd. v. Cisneros
See United States v. Hes-corp, Heavy Equipment Sales Corp., 801 F.2d 70, 74 (2nd Cir.) (citing 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 47.11, at 145 (Sands 4th ed. 1984)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 672 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephen Juzwin and Mary Juzwin, His Wife v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Individually and as Successor to Johnson's Company Carey Canadian Mines Amtorg Trading Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Flintkote Mines, Ltd. Turner & Newall, P.L.C. John Doe Corporation (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Corporations or Companies, Engaged in the Business of Mining, Manufacturing, Distributing or Supplying Finished and Unfinished Asbestos Products and Fibers to Plaintiffs' Employer Gaf/ruberoid) Judy Doe Corporations (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Legal Entities Who Stand in the Shoes of the John Doe Either as Successor in Interest, Alter Ego, or by Other Equitable Doctrine Which Makes Them Responsible for the John Doe Liability). Amtorg Trading Corp., Third-Party v. Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Flintkote Mines, Ltd., National Gypsum Company and Turner & Newall, P.L.C., Third-Party and Carey Canada, Inc., and Third-Party v. Lac D'AmiAnte Du Quebec Limitee, Individually and as Successor to Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. And Bell Asbestos Mines Limited, and Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Third-Party and Fourth-Party v. Associated Ore & Metal Corp., Ltd., Fourth-Party Appeal of Carey Canada, Inc.
Accord Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 391 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev'd on rehearing, 796 F.2d 1546 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986). 39 Turning then to the first factor, we must ask whether our decision overrules clear past precedent on which the parties may have relied or decides an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp.
Accord Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 391 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev’d on rehearing, 796 F.2d 1546 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
(2×)
See Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381 , 397 n. 14 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev’d, 796 F.2d 1546 (4th Cir.1986) (en banc) (per curiam) (citing dissenting panel opinion with approval), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zemonick
v.
Consolidation Coal Co.
v.
Consolidation Coal Co.
No. 86-683.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 15, 1986.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.