green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1986 ·
…although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Limor v. Buerger (In Re Del-Met Corp.)
the purpose of rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial pleadings are filed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McMahon v. McDowell
although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mcmahon v. Mcdowell
although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
(2×)
See Bemis Co. v. Rubush, 427 N.E.2d 1058, 1061 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amarel v. Connell
See LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs, independent dairy farmers, were competitors of dairy cooperative and therefore had standing to challenge cooperative's alleged anticompetitive conduct in suit for attempted monopolization), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928 , 107 S.Ct. 3212 , 96 L.Ed.2d 699 (1987), and William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir.1981) (antitrust suit premised on allegations that defendant used discriminatory and below-cost pricing to drive out competition from independent bakers…
discussed
Cited "see"
Amarel v. Connell
See LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs, independent dairy farmers, were competitors of dairy cooperative and therefore had standing to challenge cooperative’s alleged anticompetitive conduct in suit for attempted monopolization), ce rt. denied, 482 U.S. 928 , 107 S.Ct. 3212 , 96 L.Ed.2d 699 (1987), and William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 1981) (antitrust suit premised on allegations that defendant used discriminatory and below-cost pricing to drive out competition from independent ba…
cited
Cited "see"
Total Tv, a Wisconsin Corporation, Dba Total Tv v. Palmer Communications, Inc. And Colony Communications, Inc.
See Inglis v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1050 n. 62 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 825, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Gehl Group v. Koby
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351 , 1356 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). .
discussed
Cited "see"
The Gehl Group v. Koby
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351 , 1356 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) 15 The district court also found that Koby's statements were not defamatory, and, therefore, could not form the basis of a procedural due process claim.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackie McLeod
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), 8 cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. GLEN SLAUGHTER & ASSOCIATES
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 645 (5th Cir.), certs. denied, 456 U.S. 1008 , 102 S.Ct. 2300 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1982), 458 U.S. 1109 , 102 S.Ct 3489 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982), and 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
USA Petroleum Company v. Atlantic Richfield Company
(2×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1053 n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (delay in proposing amendment, even after extensive pretrial proceedings, is normally insufficient by itself to constitute prejudice to adverse party that would justify denial of leave to amend), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp.
(2×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1053 n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (delay in proposing amendment, even after extensive pretrial proceedings, is normally insufficient by itself to constitute prejudice to adverse party that would justify denial of leave to amend), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald D. Payton, II
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 639 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 776-78 (2d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States Steel Corporation, Uss Corporation, Uss Division (Formerly United States Steel Corporation), in 88-3775 United States Steel Corporation v. Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. MacArthur Trustees of the Property of the Penn Central Transportation Company the Penn Central Transportation Rail Corporation the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Uss Corporation, Uss Division (Formerly United States Steel Corporation), in 88-3776 United States Steel Corporation v. Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. MacArthur Trustees of the Property of the Penn Central Transportation Company the Penn Central Transportation Rail Corporation the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Norfolk and Western Railway Company, in 88-3803 the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, in 88-3804 v. United States Steel Corporation
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). 29 For each of these reasons, we accept the district court's determination that the statute of limitations does not bar USS's recovery of its overcharge claims.
cited
Cited "see"
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
Accord William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); Hennessey v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 564 F.2d 1136, 1147 (5th Cir.1977); American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 521 F.2d 1230 , 1245 n. 42 (3d Cir.1975); Walker Distrib.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gardner
See generally United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 , 640 n. 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) ("If the criminal investigation is complete prior to the immunity grant, then immunity raises few problems.”). .
cited
Cited "see"
Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration FounDation, Inc.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1029 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
D.A. Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration Foundation, Inc.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1029 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Jays Foods, Inc. v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
See generally William Inglis & Sons Baking Company v. ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1035-36 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Armando Benitez
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 641 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
D.E. Rogers Associates, Inc., a Michigan Corporation and Michigan Specialties Manufacturing Company, a Michigan Corporation v. Gardner-Denver Company
Accord William Inglis v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir.1981), ce rt. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 651 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jerry A. Blanton, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. Roy H. Healey, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1982); see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1029 nn. 9 & 11 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). 30 Under the modified Lessig doctrine, Blanton and Healey have clearly sustained their burden of proof regardless of the correctness of the jury's relevant market finding.
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanton v. Mobil Oil Corp.
Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1982); see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1029 nn. 9 & 11 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Nazareen WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1055-56 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Association v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau
Matthews & Co., 550 F.2d 1207, 1219 (9th Cir.1977); see generally William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027-39 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Best
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); United States v. Gentile, 530 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 936 , 96 S.Ct. 2651 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau
Matthews & Co., 550 F.2d 1207, 1219 (9th Cir.1977); see generally William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027-39 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoover Color Corporation v. Bayer Corporation
Alan’s of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp., 903 F.2d 1414, 1425-26 (11th Cir.1990) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1048 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that even an “admittedly small doubt” that a seller’s price reductions were a good faith response to competition required reversal of the district court’s judgment as a matter of law to the seller), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 910-11 (9th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1980); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1052-54 & n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that district court properly considered on summary judgment an antitrust plaintiffs vertical conspiracy claim that had not been raised in the complaint), cer t. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hughes Aircraft Company
See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 910-11 (9th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1980); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1052-54 & n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that district court properly considered on summary judgment an antitrust plaintiff's vertical conspiracy claim that had not been raised in the complaint), cert. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phoenix Electric Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (Predatory pricing occurs when a competitor sets low prices in order to drive out competition so that it can later charge monopoly prices and reap monopoly profits.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1508, at 556 (1971)); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (“The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial pleadings are filed ...
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Clark
See also United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 627 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Salerno
See, e.g., United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 629 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982): 64 Grand jury testimony, although given under oath, is not subjected to the vigorous truth testing of cross-examination, as is prior testimony.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Salerno
See, e.g., United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 629 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982): Grand jury testimony, although given under oath, is not subjected to the vigorous truth testing of cross-examination, as is prior testimony.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Precision Piping & Instruments, Inc. v. E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co.
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027-28 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc.
Compare Lucas, 800 F.2d at 844 (causation a standing problem), with William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1051 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (causation a merits question). 9 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lonnie Benjamin and Harold Hicken v. The City of Montgomery
See, e.g., United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 638-41 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Reckmeyer
See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc, 395 U.S. 100, 110 , 89 S.Ct. 1562, 1569 , 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969); See also United States v. Thevis, 474 F.Supp. 134, 145 (N.D.Ga.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 665 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (Court holds nondefendant may not be subject to result of criminal forfeiture proceeding); United States v. Veon, 549 F.Supp. 274 , 280 & n. 13 (E.D.Cal.1982) (concluding in dictum that “a third party who actually owns the property may not be divested of ownership barring proof of his or her perso…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp.
A civil conspiracy occurs when the parties have reached "a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds in an unlawful arrangement." American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-10 , 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1138-39 , 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1055 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp.
A civil conspiracy occurs when the parties have reached “a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds in an unlawful arrangement.” American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-10 , 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1138-39 , 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1055 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp.
Court “consistently has held that the ... defense ‘at least requires the seller, who has knowingly discriminated in price, to show the existence of facts which would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the granting of a lower price would in fact meet the equally low price of a competitor.’ ” Id.; see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Soler v. G & U, Inc.
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1056-58 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); 6 C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson Banks v. Iron Hustler Corp.
Co., 176 Mont. 98 , 576 P.2d 711 (1978); Dorsey v. Yoder Company, 331 F.Supp. 753 (E.D.Pa.1971), aff'd 474 F.2d 1339 (3rd Cir.1973), applying Pennsylvania law; compare Bemis Co., Inc. v. Rubush, 427 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind.App. 1981), cert. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Association For Intercollegiate Athletics For Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rubush
v.
Bemis Co., Inc.
v.
Bemis Co., Inc.
No. 81-2072.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · M.D. Tennessee (1)
Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.