green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Automated Salvage Transport, Inc. v. NV KONINKLIJKE KNP BT
See Meyer v. *616 Riegel Products Corp., 720 F.2d 303 , 307 n. 2 (3d Cir.1983), cert. dismissed, 465 U.S. 1091 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 79 L.Ed.2d 910 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Watson v. City of Salem
See Meyer v. Riegel Products Corp., 720 F.2d 303 , 307 n. 2 (3d Cir.1983), cert. dismissed, 465 U.S. 1091 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 79 L.Ed.2d 910 (1984); Smith v. Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Co., 464 F.2d 870, 874 (3d Cir.1972).
examined
Cited "see"
Greco v. Guss
(3×)
See Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435, 1447 (7th Cir.1983) (Eschbach, J., concurring), aff'd, 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
examined
Cited "see"
Greco v. Guss
(3×)
See Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435, 1447 (7th Cir.1983) (Eschbach, J., concurring), aff'd, 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Hahner, Foreman & Harness, Inc.
See Meyer v. Reigel Products Corp., 720 F.2d 303 (3rd Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 79 L.Ed.2d 910 (1984) and Cruce v. Brazosport Independent School District, 703 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tire Town Auto LLC v. Wood County
It could spring from unwritten “mutually explicit understandings” or a “legitimate and reasonable reliance on a promise from the government.” Id., quoting Hannon v. Turnage, 892 F.2d 653, 658 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435, 1440 (7th Cir. 1983) (“Legitimate and reasonable reliance on a promise from the state can be the source of property rights protected” by due process), aff’d by No. 25-1883 5 equally divided Court, 466 U.S. 377 (1984); accord, Perry, 408 U.S. at 602–03 (in public university employment…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Foster v. Chatman
See, e.g., Capital Cities *1764 Media, Inc. v. Toole, 466 U.S. 378 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 378 (1984) ( per curiam ); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Risk, 137 U.S. 300 , 306-307, 11 S.Ct. 111 , 34 L.Ed. 683 (1890).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ana Maria Lanza v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
(2×)
See, e.g., Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 466 U.S. 378, 378 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 378 (1984) (post- Long decision vacating state court judgment and remanding for clarification).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grabosky v. Tammac Corp.
Rather, Grabosky asserts that Tammac’s explanation of the reason for his layoff, along with its future action towards him, misled him into believing that he was dismissed due to insufficient work. “[Wjhere a defendant actively misleads the plaintiff regarding the reason for the plaintiffs dismissal, the statute of limitations will not begin to run, that is, will be tolled, until the facts which would support the plaintiffs cause of action are apparent, or should be apparent to a person with reasonable prudent regard for his or her rights.” Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1389 ; see also Meyer v. Rie…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Nancy Wolf v. City of Fitchburg and G. Jean Seiling
(3×)
See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sinclermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); see also Vail v. Board of Educ., 706 F.2d 1435, 1438 (7th Cir.1983), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
William P. Jungels v. David Pierce, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Aurora, and City of Aurora
(3×)
See, e.g., Vail v. Board of Education, 706 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir.1983), aff’d by equally divided Court, 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Volk v. Coler
(3×)
Compare Vail v. Bd. of Educ. of Paris Union School District, No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir.1983), aff'd 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (property interest in two years of employment pursuant to a two-year employment contract).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Staheli v. University of Mississippi
(3×)
See, e.g., Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435, 1437 (7th Cir.1983) (existence of property interest when superintendent, at direction of hiring authority, orally assured employee of future employment contract extension), aff’d. per curiam by divided court, 466 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kufalk v. Hart
(2×)
See also Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, 706 F.2d 1435,1438 (7th Cir.1983) affd — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (recognizing an implied contract as giving rise to a property interest).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nancy CANO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Appellee
See, e.g., Meyer v. Riegel Products Corp., 720 F.2d 303, 308 (3rd Cir.1983) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 79 L.Ed.2d 910 (1984); Keyse v. California Texas Oil Corp., 590 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 1978); Edwards v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 515 F.2d 1195 , 1200 n. 8 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Milan Schultz v. Fred Baumgart, Chief, Waukesha Fire Department
(2×)
See, e.g., Vail v. Board of Education, 706 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir.1983), affirmed by equally divided court, Board of Education v. Vail, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2144 , 80 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PARIS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 ET AL.
v.
VAIL
v.
VAIL
83-87.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1984.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 47 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Thomas R. Miller argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
Marc J. Ansel argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the decision of this case.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of University Professors by Ralph S. Brown, Lawrence White, Ann H. Franke, and Victor J. Stone; and for the National Education Association et al. by Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, and Charles S. Sims.
Gwendolyn H. Gregory filed a brief for the National School Boards Association as amicus curiae.