green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 5×
8.0 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
ca5 1982
But see Pate v. Dade County School Board, 588 F.2d 501, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 67 , 62 L.Ed.2d 44 (1979), where the Court intimated that in that case the right of parents was one of permissive intervention, if at all.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc.
But see Pate v. Dade County School Board, 588 F.2d 501, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 67 , 62 L.Ed.2d 44 (1979), where the Court intimated that in that case the right of parents was one of permissive intervention, if at all.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sebastian Ramirez, United States of America v. Leopoldo Manzo-Garcia, United States of America v. Perry Wagner
in ordinary usage, the verb 'carry' includes transportation or causing to be transported.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District
that the district court has a continuing responsibility to appraise the system in the light of actual conditions and experience and make required changes to assure the maintenance of a unitary system
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. PULASKI COUNTY SP. SCH.
that the district court has a continuing responsibility to appraise the system in the light of actual conditions and experience and make required changes to assure the maintenance of a unitary system
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Robert J. Davis v. Board Of Education Of The North Little Rock, Arkansas, School District
(we have recognized) that the district court has a continuing responsibility to appraise the system in the light of actual conditions and experience and make required changes to assure the maintenance of a unitary system
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Davis v. Board of Education
that the district court has a continuing responsibility to appraise the system in the light of actual conditions and experience and make required changes to assure the maintenance of a unitary system
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce
See Grogan v. Commonwealth, 577 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Ky.) (recognizing that if the State were held liable for a failure to enforce laws and regulations establishing safety standards for construction and use of buildings, the State’s status as a governmental entity ‘would be the only basis for holding a city or state liable, because only a governmental entity possesses the authority to enact and enforce laws for the protection of the public’), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 [ 100 S.Ct. 69 ], 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
See Grogan v. Commonwealth, 577 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Ky.) (recognizing that if the State were held liable for a failure to enforce laws and regulations establishing safety standards for construction and use of buildings, the State’s status as a governmental entity ‘would be the only basis for holding a city or state liable, because only a governmental entity possesses the authority to enact and enforce laws for the protection of the public’), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 [ 100 S.Ct. 69 ], 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stone v. North Carolina Department of Labor
(2×)
See Grogan v. Commonwealth, 577 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Ky.) (recognizing that if the State were held liable for a failure to enforce laws and regulations establishing safety standards for construction and use of buildings, the State's status as a governmental entity "would be the only basis for holding a city or state liable, because only a governmental entity possesses the authority to enact and enforce laws for the protection of the public"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Penn Central Transportation Company. Appeal of Pinney Dock & Transport Company, Litton Industries, Inc., Litton Systems, Inc., Litton Great Lakes Corporation and Erie Marine, Inc
See 596 F.2d 1102 (3d Cir.1979) (affirming in part and remanding for modification of the distribution to two indenture trustees), 596 F.2d 1127 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 834 , 100 S.Ct. 67 , 62 L.Ed.2d 44 (1979) (affirming and rejecting the objections of certain secured creditors), and 596 F.2d 1155 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 68 , 62 L.Ed.2d 45 (1979) (dismissing the appeal of certain shareholders and affirming two orders in the related Chapter XI proceedings) 4 PCC's co-defendants are Baltimore & Ohio R.R.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Penn Central Transportation Co.
See 596 F.2d 1102 (3d Cir.1979) (affirming in part and remanding for modification of the distribution to two indenture trustees), 596 F.2d 1127 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 834 , 100 S.Ct. 67 , 62 L.Ed.2d 44 (1979) (affirming and rejecting the objections of certain secured creditors), and 596 F.2d 1155 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 68 , 62 L.Ed.2d 45 (1979) (dismissing the appeal of certain shareholders and affirming two orders in the related Chapter XI proceedings). .
cited
Cited "see"
Municipality of Anchorage v. Lloyd
See United States v. Barber, 594 F.2d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co.
Accord, United States v. Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Co., 594 F.2d 653 , 656 n.5 (8th Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 45 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Company, and Mansion House Center Redevelopment Company
Accord, United States v. Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Co., 594 F.2d 653 , 656 n.5 (8th Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 45 (1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gilberto Pineda-Ortuno and Carlos Ramirez-Carranza
See also United States v. Barber, 594 F.2d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daggett v. County of Maricopa
See e.g., Grogan v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 577 S.W.2d 4 (Ky.), cert. denied 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979) (government inspections intended to ensure compliance with regulations and not for protection of third parties); McCreary v. United States, 488 F.Supp. 538 (W.D.Pa.1978) (sections 323 and 324A require services to be rendered directly to the person harmed or causing harm rendered); Mercer v. United States, 460 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.Ohio 1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings. United States of America v. Peter Brian Berry, Tina Barnett
Glassman, 533 F.2d at 263 & n. 3; see also Simons v. United States, 592 F.2d 251 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 , 100 S.Ct. 69 , 62 L.Ed.2d 45 (1979).
Beckford
v.
Dade County School Board
v.
Dade County School Board
No. 78-1773.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1979.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.