green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Roberti (In Re Roberti)
it is an elementary principle of issue preclusion that it may only be asserted where the burden of proof as to is no greater than it was in the prior proceeding where the issue was decided
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
O.K. Sand & Gravel, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Martin Marietta Technologies, Incorporated
(2×)
we must look to the instructions as a whole, in a common sense manner ... inquiring whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor v. Joseph P. Mazzola, Robert E. Buckley, Robert J. Costello, Etc.
rylander ii
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 787 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Freiman v. Lazur, 925 F.Supp. 14, 24 (D.D.C.1996); Environmental Research Int’l., Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d at 813 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Prystash v. State
(2×)
Accord Davis v. State, 782 S.W.2d 211, 221-22 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 940 , 110 S.Ct. 2193 , 109 L.Ed.2d 520 (1990) (quoting Barfield v. Harris, 540 F.Supp. 451 , 472 n. 17 (E.D.N.C.1982), affirmed, 719 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984)).
cited
Cited "see"
Farah v. Stout
See Ebert v. Ritchey, 54 Md.App. 388, 398 , 458 A.2d 891 , cert. denied, 296 Md. 414 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 356 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Blanck
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. at 378 , 102 S.Ct. at 1839 ; Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575 , 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2488-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979); see Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789-90 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackie Wilson v. James K. Williams
(2×)
See Wilk v. American Medical Ass’n, 719 F.2d 207, 218 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John A. Voss, United States of America v. Mitchell S. Beals, United States of America v. Brent L. Beals
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1002-03 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 22 Rectangular or Cylindrical Finished Devices
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also Eisenberg v. University of New Mexico, 936 F.2d 1131 , 1137 (10th Cir.1991); Yates v. United States, 316 F.2d 718, 723 (10th Cir. 1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Norris
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 998, 1004 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also, Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) absent an express statute, there is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. Mobile Cty. Appointing Board
(2×)
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) ("[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).11 II.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. State Of Alabama
(2×)
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) ("[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984). 11 II. 9 Appellants contend that the plaintiffs failed to allege, or to demonstrate, the violation of a right "secured by the Constitution" as required under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roe v. Alabama ex rel. Evans
(2×)
See Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) (“[T]he Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise.”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984). 11 II.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hemmerle v. Bakst (In Re Sun-Island Realty, Inc.)
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 998, 1004 (9th Cir. *397 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); see also, Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) (absent an express statute, there is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings).
discussed
Cited "see"
Horowitz v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 792, n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300 (3d Cir.1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 782 (D.C.Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
cadc 1993
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 782 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rita J. Minnette v. Time Warner
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); 15 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3827, at 261-62 (2d ed. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hospital
(2×)
See Wilk v. American Medical Association, 719 F.2d 207 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 2399, 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Donald Hayhurst, Dr. v. Carlo Calabrese, Individually and as Agent for Council on Naturopathic Medical Education
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 786-87 (D.C.Cir.1983) (personal jurisdiction cannot be founded upon "exercises in petitioning the government" or "attempts to influence government action"), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
(2×)
See, Wilk v. American Medical Association, 719 F.2d 207 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 2399, 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984) (where chiropractors sued medical association for damages resulting from association’s refusal to deal with chiropractors, the court, in reversing a trial verdict in favor of defendants, noted that it could find that members of an association promulgated guidelines sanctioning conduct in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pruett v. Thompson
See Barfield v. Harris, 719 F.2d 58, 61 (4th Cir. 1983) ("Jury consideration of non-statutory aggravating factors, as long as they relate to the character of the defendant and to the crime he committed, does not violate the Constitution of the United States.”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984). 14 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bobby R. Savage v. Wayne Estelle, Warden
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983) ("The preferred procedure is for the district judge to ensure that a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently by discussing with the defendant, on the record, the nature of the charges, the possible penalties, and the dangers of self-representation."), cer t. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bobby R. Savage v. Wayne Estelle, Warden
See United States v. Ry-lander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983) ("The preferred procedure is for the district judge to ensure that a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently by discussing with the defendant, on the record, the nature of the charges, the possible penalties, and the dangers of self-representation."), cer t. denied, 467 U.S. 1209, 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Denkmann Associates v. International Paper Co.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Clark, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Doty v. St.
cited
Cited "see"
James W. Menefield v. Robert G. Borg, Warden
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Kitterman
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1004 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Harmon v. State
See Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 973, 977 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 , 81 L.Ed.2d 356 (1984); Riley v. State, 366 So.2d 19 (Fla. 1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Clements Distributing Co. of Virginia v. Celebrity Products, Inc.
D.C.Code § 13-423(b); see Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 542 F.Supp. 1196, 1199 (D.D.C.1982), aff’d, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Chicago International v. United Exchange Co., Ltd.
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 785 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984) (§ 13-423(a)(l) does not confer specific personal jurisdiction where the claims asserted are "unrelated to the acts forming the basis for personal jurisdiction").
cited
Cited "see"
Struth v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
See Antonelli v. F.B.I., 721 F.2d 615, 619 (7th Cir.1983), cert, denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
William Duane Elledge v. Richard L. Dugger
(2×)
See Barfield v. Harris, 540 F.Supp. 451, 457-59 (E.D.N.C.1982), aff'd, 719 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984). 18 Of all the several experts who examined Elledge over the years, only Dr. Lewis found him to be operating under extreme emotional or emotional disturbance caused by organic brain damage.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kent B. Crane v. Archie Carr, III
See Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 786-87 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Investment Co. Inst. v. United States, 550 F.Supp. 1213, 1216 (D.D.C.1982) (relationships with federal *762 agencies did not enter into the personal jurisdiction calculus).
discussed
Cited "see"
Melvin D. Reuber v. United States of America
(2×)
See Naartex Consulting Corp., v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 788 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, State of Texas, Intervenor
(2×)
See pp. 1152-53, infra. Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Brinkman v. Gilligan
See Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 714 F.2d 946 , 950 n. 4 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 354 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Wilk v. American Medical Association
See 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 2399. 1 Before SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, * and JAMES E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States
Co. v. England, 313 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2002) (discussing the interrelationship of these statutes). .See Sun Cal, Inc. v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 31, 37 (1990) (applying the holding in Beaconwear to a CDA claim); Rodgers Constr., Inc., 92-1 B.C.A. ¶ 24,503 (1991) (same); Fireman’s Fund/Underwater Constr., Inc., 87-3 B.C.A. ¶ 20,007 (1987) (same); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 794 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984); Tuftco Corp. v. United States, 614 F.2d 740 , 744 n. 4 (Ct.Cl.1980); Kenrich Corp. v. Miller, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott v. Michigan
(2×)
See, e.g., Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir.1983) (stating that the doctrine applies “only to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott v. Michigan
(2×)
See, e.g., Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating that the doctrine applies "only to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise"), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Children's Healthcare is Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters
School Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 , 441 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Fitzpatrick ), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 2439 , 124 L.Ed.2d 658 (1993); see also Los Angeles Branch, NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 714 F.2d 946 , 953 (9th Cir.1983) (finding that the plaintiffs sued a governor as a surrogate for the state to evade Eleventh Amendment immunity (citing Young )), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 354 (1984). 12 C 19 In support of their view that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this action against the Attorney General, the plaintiffs call our attention t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters
School Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 , 441 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Fitzpatrick ), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 2439 , 124 L.Ed.2d 658 (1993); see also Los Angeles Branch, NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 714 F.2d 946 , 953 (9th Cir.1983) (finding that the plaintiffs sued a governor as a surrogate for the state to evade Eleventh Amendment immunity (citing Young)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 354 (1984). 12 C In support of their view that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this action against the Attorney General, the plaintiffs call our attention to th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kadic v. Karadžić
Karadzic analogizes his proposed rule to the “government contacts exception” to the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute, which has been broadly characterized to mean that “mere entry [into the District of Columbia] by non-residents for the purpose of contacting federal government agencies cannot serve as a basis for in personam jurisdiction,” Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368, 1370 (D.C.1978); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 785-87 (D.C.Cir.1983) (construing government contacts exception to District of Columbia’s long-arm statute), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 12…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH
See, e.g., Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 788 (D.C.Cir.1983) (“[A] district court has broad discretion in its resolution of discovery problems that arise in cases pending before it.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. City of Yonkers
See also Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 714 F.2d 946 , 953 (9th Cir.1983) (dismissing § 1983 school desegregation action against the Governor of California), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1209 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 354 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jerome Hunt v. Chicago Housing Authority, a Municipal Corporation, James Gilmartin and Charles Clarke
Even if a jury instruction is determined to be erroneous, "we will not find reversible error absent some effect on the substantial rights of the parties." Vaughn v. Willis, 853 F.2d 1372, 1376 (quoting General Leaseways, 830 F.2d at 725 ); see also Bruno v. City of Crown Point, 950 F.2d 355, 360 (7th Cir.1991) (jury verdicts not reversed " '[e]ven if we should discern error in one or more instructions ... unless we are persuaded the jury's understanding of the issue was seriously affected' " to the prejudice of the complaining party) (quoting Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 719 F.2d 207 , 218-…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alvie James Hale, Jr. v. United States Department of Justice, and Its Component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
See Burge, 934 F.2d at 580 ; see also Antonelli v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 721 F.2d 615, 619 (7th Cir.1983) (“The contention that ‘the public shares [the requester’s] interest in ensuring that his convictions were not obtained as a result of a violation of the Constitution’ is [an] insufficient [public interest].”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2399 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale J. Doerr, John Paul Doerr, Josephine Christofalos, Christa D. Pixley, and Archie J. Pixley
(2×)
United States v. Thibodeaux, 758 F.2d 199, 202 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Croft, 750 F.2d 1354, 1366 (7th Cir.1984)); see also General Leaseways, Inc. v. National Truck Leasing Ass’n, 830 F.2d 716, 725 (7th Cir.1987). (jury instructions must be construed in a “ ‘common sense manner, avoiding fastidiousness, inquiring whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well’ ”) (quoting Wilk v. American Medical Ass’n, 719 F.2d 207, 218 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2398 , 81 L.Ed.2d 355 (1984)).
Orange County
v.
Wood
v.
Wood
No. 83-1355.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 21, 1984.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.