green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.3 score
“this does not mean that the district court should ignore the fact that a tender has been made. the tender may raise a question, on which we now express no opinion, as to the named plaintiffs' ability to fairly and adequately represent the class.”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
John A. by and Through Valerie A. v. Gill
But see Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980), (suggesting that unilat *377 eral action by defendants mooting named plaintiffs’ claims prior to class certification does not require dismissal of action).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reed v. Bowen
this does not mean that the district court should ignore the fact that a tender has been made. the tender may raise a question, on which we now express no opinion, as to the named plaintiffs' ability to fairly and adequately represent the class.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reed ex rel. Burns v. Bowen
this does not mean that the district court should ignore the fact that a tender has been made. the tender may raise a question, on which we now express no opinion, as to the named plaintiffs' ability to fairly and adequately represent the class.
discussed
Cited "see"
Callier v. Warden
See United States v. Krasney, 607 F.2d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1979) (recognizing the jurisdictions following Larrison), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 (1980). *988 (1) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false. (2) That without it, the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (3) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial. *989 The Larrison standard, however, has not always been applied in such cases.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. State
(2×)
See likewise, Comment, supra, 35 Emory L.J. at 974-75 and Comment, supra, 11 Golden Gate U.L.Rev. at 171 (referencing United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Steelworkers v. St. Joe Resources
(2×)
See Willamette Iron & Steel Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 604 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 776 (1980); Cox Bros., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 574 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.1978), finding no jurisdiction over divided decisions. .
discussed
Cited "see"
ca5 1990
(2×)
See Willamette Iron & Steel Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 604 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 776 (1980); Cox Bros., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 574 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.1978), finding no jurisdiction over divided decisions 2 Section 658 empowers the Secretary to issue citations against employers who violate safety and health standards.
discussed
Cited "see"
McNeill v. New York City Housing Authority
See Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); Griffith v. Bowen, 678 F.Supp. 942 (D.Mass.1988). 19 For the reasons discussed above, the Court certifies the proposed class. *254 E.
cited
Cited "see"
Emerald Partners v. Berlin
See, Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 561 F.2d 86 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, Lincoln American Corp. v. Susman, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. Richard Derobertis
See United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1979) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Reed v. Heckler
Accord Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Reed v. Heckler
Accord Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Susman v. Lincoln American Corp.
See Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); 561 F.2d 86 (7th Cir.1977); 550 F.Supp. 442 (N.D.Ill.1982); 517 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Ill.1981); 500 F.Supp. 748 (N.D.Ill.1980). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Fine Paper Litigation State of Washington, No. 79-2738. State of New York
They may challenge the adequacy of representation by the plaintiff, see Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Cooperative Association, 395 F.2d 420 (3d Cir. 1968); in some circumstances, they may have a right to be informed of, or be included in, a settlement, Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., 582 F.2d 1298 (4th Cir. 1978); Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 42 F.R.D. 324 (E.D.Pa.1967); see Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); and, perhaps most importantly, the statute of limitations may be tolled during the p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
King v. Frank
See e.g., Sweet v. Bermingham, 65 F.R.D. 551, 552 (1975); Graybeal v. American Saving & Loan Ass’n, 59 F.R.D. 7, 13-14 (D.D.C.1973); see also Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 561 F.2d 86 , 90 n. 5 (7th Cir.1977), appeal after remand, 587 F.2d 866 (1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); Conway v. City of Kenosha, 409 F.Supp. 344, 349 (E.D.Wis.1975)(plaintiff acting both as class representative and as class attorney precludes class certification).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Eastwood v. National Bank of Commerce, Altus, Okl.
See also Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866, 872 (7th Cir.1978), cert, denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980) (applying Delaware law).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington v. Finlay
See, e. g., Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington v. Finlay
See, e. g., Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1336 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry Diggs, United States of America v. Peter Oliverez
See, e. g., United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); United States v. Cervantes, 542 F.2d 773 , *740 779 (9th Cir. 1976).
Newman
v.
Elrod, Sheriff
v.
Elrod, Sheriff
No. 79-1020.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 24, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (2)
App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.