green
Positive treatment
3.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Northwest National Bank, Fayetteville, Arkansas v. United States of America Department of the Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
See Independent Bankers Ass’n v. Heimann, 613 F.2d 1164 , 1169 & n. 15 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980); Lincoln Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., 856 F.2d 1558, 1563 (D.C.Cir.1988). 7 Secondly, we hold that, despite the Comptroller’s labeling of Section 7.3025 as an interpretive rule, see 44 Fed.Reg. 46428 (Aug. 8, 1979), its nature and history show that it should be construed as a legislative rule, violation of which may form the basis for a cease and desist order.
discussed
Cited "see"
Berniece Larimore, Sam M. Taylor, William G. Butcher, and Orville Bottrell v. C.T. Conover, Comptroller of the Currency
(2×)
See Independent Bankers Ass’n v. Heimann, 613 F.2d 1164, 1168 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. den. 449 U.S. 823 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Edwin T. Teal and Hilde Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., Defendants-Third Party v. Penrod Drilling Corporation, Third Party
See, e.g., Wink v. Rowan Drilling Co., 611 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.) (“releases or settlements involving seaman’s rights are subject to careful scrutiny”), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 823 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Land Title Ass'n v. Clarke
See e.g., Independent Bankers Assoc, v. Heimann, 613 F.2d 1164 (D.C.Cir.1979) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rollins Environmental Services (FS), Inc. v. Parish of St. James
All evidence to support the Rollins claim is now before this Court.”); Appellant’s Brief at 21 ("Remand of the case for findings as to the applicability of the ordinance and its validity is unnecessary, and would be wasteful of judicial resources since no issues of material fact remain and the legal issues can be fully briefed and argued in this appeal.”); Appellant's Reply Brief at 3 ("The question of whether Ordinance 85-1 is constitutional, as well as the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction resides in the district court, should both be decided in this appeal.”); see also…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rollins Environmental Services (Fs), Inc. v. The Parish Of St. James
All evidence to support the Rollins claim is now before this Court."); Appellant's Brief at 21 ("Remand of the case for findings as to the applicability of the ordinance and its validity is unnecessary, and would be wasteful of judicial resources since no issues of material fact remain and the legal issues can be fully briefed and argued in this appeal."); Appellant's Reply Brief at 3 ("The question of whether Ordinance 85-1 is constitutional, as well as the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction resides in the district court, should both be decided in this appeal."); see also Indepen…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronnie Gene Bass v. Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd., Third-Party v. Crown Rig Building Services, Inc., and Branham Industries, Inc., Third-Party
See, e.g., Wink v. Rowan Drilling Co., 611 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.) (“releases or settlements involving seaman’s rights are subject to careful scrutiny”), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 823 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rowan Drilling Co.
v.
Wink
v.
Wink
No. 79-1697.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.