green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.4 score
“a rule placing the burden of diligence and further inquiry on the part of non-english-speaking individual served in this country with a notice in english does not violate any principle of due process.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, and Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States"), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country") 11 Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const. amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country”). .Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const, amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann. § 1-4-117; California, Cal. Const, art.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, and Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States"), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country") 10 Besides Arizona, the states that have adopted such provisions are: Alabama, Ala. Const. amend. 509; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English
But cf. Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (asserting that "English is the national language of the United States”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); DaLomba v. Director, 369 Mass. 92 , 337 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1975) (stating that "English is the official language of this country”). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
PERALTA EX REL. PERALTA v. Barnhart
placing the burden of diligence and further inquiry on the part of a non-english-speaking individual served in this country with a notice in english does not violate any principle of due process
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hun Jong Kim v. United States
a rule placing the burden of diligence and further inquiry on the part of non-english-speaking individual served in this country with a notice in english does not violate any principle of due process.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jana-Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Department of Economic Development
See So beral-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (finding that Hispanics constitute a suspect class); 15 U.S.C. § 637 (d)(3)(C), Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jana-Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Department Of Economic Development
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (finding that Hispanics constitute a suspect class); 15 U.S.C. § 637 (d)(3)(C), Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Villa-Villa
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)(rule placing burden of diligence and further inquiry on non-English speaking individual served with a notice in English does not violate due process); Commonwealth v. Olivo, 369 Mass. 62 , 337 N.E.2d 904 (Mass.1975)(English-only notices of condemnation did not violate due process or equal protection and defendants were on inquiry notice to find out their meaning).
discussed
Cited "see"
Century ML-Cable Corp. v. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED BY EDWIN CARRILLO
See Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444, 445-46 (2d Cir.1994) (English language notice satisfies due process even when recipient does not understand English and is incarcerated and therefore unable to obtain a translation easily), citing Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 111 F.2d 36, 43-44 (2d Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (providing notice in English to Spanish-speaking claimants of social security benefits not violative of due process); Hong v. United States, 920 F.Supp. 311, 315-16 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (Notice of forfeiture in English was not constitution…
discussed
Cited "see"
Alston v. Howard
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983) (“[w]here a suspect class or a fundamental right is not implicated, the challenged action need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); see also Rivera v. Senkowski, 62 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.1995) (denying equal protection claim against defendants who had no authority to remedy alleged violation).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grubb v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Norris v. Wirtz, 719 F.2d 256, 259-60 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984) (beneficiary of trust that sold securities had standing under Rule 10b-5 because representations made directly to beneficiary, who had right to approve sale and experienced direct impact of transaction); Banco Nacional De Costa Rica v. Bremar Holdings Corp., 492 F.Supp. 364, 371-72 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (unconditional guarantor of note had standing because it stood in shoes of maker which dealt in security); see also Mullen v. Sweetwater Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ron Grubb v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Norris v. Wirtz, 719 F.2d 256, 259-60 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984) (beneficiary of trust that sold securities had standing under Rule 10b-5 because representations made directly to beneficiary, who had right to approve sale and experienced direct impact of transaction); Banco Nacional De Costa Rica v. Bremar Holdings Corp., 492 F.Supp. 364, 371-72 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (unconditional guarantor of note had standing because it stood in shoes of maker which dealt in security); see also Mullen v. Sweetwater Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Village of Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Poder
See Norris v. Wirtz, 719 F.2d 256 (7th Cir.1983) (distinguishing O’Brien and upholding a 10b-5 claim where plaintiff reserved the right to approve certain transactions), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Soderberg v. Gens
See Norris v. Wirtz, 719 F.2d 256 , 259 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984); Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 , 240 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Heyman v. Heyman, 356 F.Supp. 958, 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Dale Dunn
See United States v. Jones, 719 F.2d 110, 112 (5th Cir.1983) (appellant cited no authority for government’s duty to institute Rule 46 proceedings upon rearrest), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984). 16 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern Ca O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Contra Costa County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
See Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1975); see also Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir.1980) ("Neither [Title VII] nor common understanding equates national origin with the language one chooses to speak."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 , 101 S.Ct. 923 , 66 L.Ed.2d 842 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
David v. Heckler
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 549 F.Supp. 1164, 1169-70 (E.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayden v. Paterson
Law § 5-106 , Historical and Statutory Notes; supra Background, Part II. 14 In some cases, “notwithstanding [discriminatory] impact[,] the legitimate noninvidious purposes of a law cannot be missed.” Feeney, 442 U.S. at 275 , 99 S.Ct. 2282 (explaining that the distinction made by the Massachusetts veterans preference law “is, as it seems to be, quite simply between veterans and nonveterans, not between men and women”); see also Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir.1983) (affirming dismissal of equal protection challenge to Secretary of Health and Human Services’ failure…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samedi v. Miami-Dade County
To the contrary, “the courts have recognized, whether explicitly or implicitly, that in an English-speaking country, requirements of ‘reasonable notice’ are satisfied when the notice is given in English.” Vialez v. New York City Housing Authority, 783 F.Supp. 109, 120 (S.D.N.Y.1991), quoting Alfonso v. Board of Review, 89 N.J. 41 , 444 A.2d 1075, 1077 (1982), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 459 U.S. 806 , 103 S.Ct. 30 , 74 L.Ed.2d 45 (1982); see also Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 43 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Jordan v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haywood Champion v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent Sgt. v. Guarracino
See, e.g., Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983) (‘Where a suspect class or a fundamental right is not implicated, the challenged action need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); see generally Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981); Thomas v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 132, 136 (2d Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose A. Davidson v. Belcor, Inc., Aargus Polybag Co., Inc., M. Douglas Caffey and Robert Davidson
See also Norris v. Wirtz, 719 F.2d 256 , 259 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 , 104 S.Ct. 1713 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984); O’Brien v. Continental Illinois Nat.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wirtz, Trustee
v.
Norris
v.
Norris
No. 83-1471.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 2, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (2)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.