green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Bloch v. Temple University
As the Seventh Circuit stated in Smith , “the content of some remarks may lift the speech to the level of public concern even if the employee’s reasons for speaking out are entirely self-interested.” Smith, 28 F.3d at 652 (citations omitted); see Belk v. Town of Minocqua, 858 F.2d 1258, 1263-64 (7th Cir.1988) (“content is the greatest single factor in the Connick inquiry”) (quoting Berg v. Hunter, 854 F.2d 238, 242-43 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1053 , 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989)).
cited
Cited "see"
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection
See Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 615 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Benjamin v. Coughlin
In determining the preclusive effect given a state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1982), a federal court must “give that judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the state under state law.” Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 732 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021 , 107 S.Ct. 3266 , 97 L.Ed.2d 764 (1987); see Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 616 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Benjamin v. Coughlin
Sec. 1738 (1982), a federal court must "give that judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the state under state law." Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 732 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021 , 107 S.Ct. 3266 , 97 L.Ed.2d 764 (1987); see Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 616 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Austern v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
See Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 616 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kokkinis v. Ivkovich
The first step of this analysis— determining whether the plaintiffs speech was constitutionally protected — is a question of law for the court, see Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 148 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); see also Berg v. Hunter, 854 F.2d 238, 243 (7th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 489 U.S. 1053 , 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989); Hesse v. Board of Educ. of Township High Sch.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kenneth J. Conte and Laura Conte v. Karen L. Justice
See also Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 617 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1053 , 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989); Norris v. Grosvenor Mktg.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Itt Corporation, and Affiliated Companies v. United States
“Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a *564 party to the first case.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 , 101 S.Ct. 411, 414 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); see also, Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 616 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1053 , 109 S.Ct. 1314 , 103 L.Ed.2d 583 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miller
v.
ConAgra, Inc.
v.
ConAgra, Inc.
No. 88-1064.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 27, 1989.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.