green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.1 score
“stone webster”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Lake v. Smith
We adopt his definition of low-water mark, which is not challenged here, as the line drawn at the point to which the river recedes at its lowest stage without reference to extreme droughts.” (Id. at pp. 619-620 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 1405], italics added.) It is also significant that this is the position taken by a respected commentary on real property law. “ ‘Low watermark’ usually means ordinary low water, not extraordinary mark in time of drought.” (6 Thompson on Real Property, supra (1981 supp.) § 3075, p. 74.) We note that our Supreme Court has previously relied upon this particular…
discussed
Cited "see"
Pender v. Bank of America Corp.
See Janowski v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local No. 710 Pension Fund, 678 F.2d 931, 937 (7th Cir.1982) (noting that “the statute authorized any normal retirement age,” subject to a ceiling of age 65), vacated on other grounds, 463 U.S. 1222 , 103 S.Ct. 3565 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1983); Geib v. N.Y.
cited
Cited "see"
Associated Builders And Contractors v. Perry
See Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd mem., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Associated Builders & Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter v. Perry
See Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd mem., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Crazy Eddie, Inc. v. Cotter
See Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 326 n. 2 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
James Edward Glatz v. Dr. Haydee Kort, Hugh Jan Cornell v. Dr. Frank Traylor
See Ledbetter v. Benham, 463 U.S. 1222 , 103 S.ct. 3565, 77 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Whitworth Bros. Storage Company v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendants
See Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323, 326 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Benham v. Ledbetter
See Ledbetter v. Benham, 463 U.S. 1222 , 103 S.Ct. 3565 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Retired Public Employees' Ass'n v. California
See Retired Public Employees, supra, 677 F.2d at 738 (“in view of Manhart , the award [of increased benefits] should have been foreseen and taken into account by administrators, thus lessening the financial impact on the pension plan”), vacated, 463 U.S. 1222 , 103 S.Ct. 3565 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burgio And Campofelice, Inc. v. Nys Dep't Of Labor
This Court, of course, frequently has resolved pre-emption disputes in a similar jurisdictional posture. 24 Id. at 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. at 2899 n. 14 (citations omitted); see also Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 327-28 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd. mem. sub nom., Arcudi v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983). 25 Defendants argue that these cases are not controlling here "[s]ince the issue of whether plaintiffs had a cause of action in Stone & Webster and Shaw was neither raised by the parties nor otherwise addressed by the courts." …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. NYS Dep't of Labor
Id. at 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. at 2899 n. 14 (citations omitted); see also Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 327-28 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd. mem. sub nom., Arcudi v. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of Sheppard v. Caterpillar, Inc.
See also Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 326 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd without opinion, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983) (employer afforded no jurisdiction under § 1132(e)(1)); 11 Amalgamated Indus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fresh International Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., Stone v. Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 326 n. 2 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., Arcudi v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983); Marshall v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 558 F.2d 680, 684 (2d Cir.1977); Icahn v. Blunt, 612 F.Supp. 1400 (W.D.Mo.1985) 11 In Baggett, the Eleventh Circuit concluded: It would be an overstatement to suggest that when the federal question is one of preemption, abstention under the principle of Younger v. Harris is never appropriate.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fresh International Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., Stone v. Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 326 n. 2 (2d Cir. 1982), aff’d on other grounds sub nom., Arcudi v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983); Marshall v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 558 F.2d 680, 684 (2d Cir.1977); Icahn v. Blunt, 612 F.Supp. 1400 (W.D.Mo.1985). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos
See id. 106 S.Ct. at 3236 n. 12 (jurisdiction under section 1331 turns on the "nature of the federal issues at stake"); see also Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 328 n. 4 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos
See id. 106 S.Ct. at 3236 n. 12 (jurisdiction under section 1331 turns on the “nature of the federal issues at stake”); see also Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 , 328 n. 4 (2d Cir.1982), aff’d, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sforza v. Kenco Constructional Contracting, Inc.
See, e.g., Stone and Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323, 329 (2d Cir.1982), aff’d, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983) (Connecticut statute that requires employer to make contribution for former employee which was not bargained for or agreed to in contract between employer and the union is a law that relates to the terms and conditions of an employee benefit plan and is subject to preemption). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sforza v. Kenco Constructional Contracting, Inc.
See, e.g., Stone and Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323, 329 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd, 463 U.S. 1220 , 103 S.Ct. 3564 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1983) (Connecticut statute that requires employer to make contribution for former employee which was not bargained for or agreed to in contract between employer and the union is a law that relates to the terms and conditions of an employee benefit plan and is subject to preemption). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northeast Department Ilgwu Health and Welfare Fund and Sol Hoffman v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund
(2×)
Compare Franchise Tax Board, 103 S.Ct. at 2849-53 (action by state tax board for declaration that federal law (ERISA) is not preemptive of state law violates Shelly Oil rule) and Public Service Commission v. Wycoff 344 U.S. 237 , 73 S.Ct. 236 , 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952) (in dictum, Court states that declaratory judgment plaintiff who has only federal defense probably does not have basis for federal jurisdiction) with Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 103 S.Ct. 2890 , 2899 n. 14, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (action by employers for declaration that state law is preempted by ERISA does not run afo…
Pennzoil Co.
v.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
v.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
No. 81-1672.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 6, 1983.
Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Public Service Comm’n of New York v. Mid-Louisiana Gas Co., ante, p. 319.