green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…because a union must have the information necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibility to represent all employees in the unit, we conclude that the flra did not err in holding that the requested information is necessary ...
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc.)
But see In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 630 (10th Cir.1987), (stating that class proofs of claim are unauthorized under the Bankruptcy Code and Rules), vacated and rev’d in part on other grounds sub. nom., Sheftelman v. Standard Metals, Corp., 839 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988). 6 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Computer Learning Centers, Inc.
But see Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp. (In re Standard Metals Corp.), 817 F.2d 625 (10th Cir.1987) vacated and reversed in part on other grounds sub. nom. 839 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.1987) ce rt. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jones v. Amdura Corp. (In Re Amdura Corp.)
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
standard metals ii
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Federal Labor Relations Authority, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. United States Department of Defense, United States Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., and Navy Cbc Exchange, Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi, Respondents-Cross-Petitioners. Federal Labor Relations Authority, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. United States Department of Defense, Army and Air Force Exchange, Dallas, Texas, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
because a union must have the information necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibility to represent all employees in the unit, we conclude that the flra did not err in holding that the requested information is necessary ...
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Navy
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
because a union must have the information necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibility to represent all employees in the unit, we conclude that the flra did not err in holding that the requested information is necessary ...
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Craft
See Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp. (In re Standard Metals Corp.), 817 F.2d 625, 631 (10th Cir.1987) vacated and rev’d on other grounds, 839 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.1987) cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988); FirstPlus, 248 B.R. at 69 ; Great W., 88 B.R. at 112 ; In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 94 B.R. 877, 880 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1988); In re Elec.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
See Department of Navy v. FLRA, 840 F. 2d 1131 (CA3), cert. dism’d, 488 U. S. 881 (1988); Department of Air Force, Scott Air Force Base v. FLRA, 838 F. 2d 229 (CA7), cert. dism’d, 488 U. S. 880 (1988); Department of Agriculture v. FLRA, 836 F. 2d 1139 (CA8 1988), vacated and remanded, 488 U. S. 1025 (1989); Department of Health and Human Services v. FLRA, 833 F. 2d 1129 (CA4 1987), cert. dism’d, 488 U. S. 880 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Shaw v. Whirlpool Financial Corp. (In Re the Appliance Store, Inc.)
See In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Department of Commerce
See Department of Navy v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 1131 , 1136-37 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 632 , 102 L.Ed.2d 170 (1988); American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA, 786 F.2d 554 , 557 (2d Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service, National Treasury Employees Union, Amicus Curiae. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service v. Labor Relations Authority, National Treasury Employees Union, Amicus Curiae
See Department of Navy v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 1131 , 1136-37 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 632 , 102 L.Ed.2d 170 (1988); American Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA, 786 F.2d 554 , 557 (2d Cir.1986). 8 The Department of Commerce here, however, argues that a recent Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 , 109 S.Ct. 1468 , 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (Reporters Committee ), overrules these holdings.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the George Worthington Co., Debtor
(2×)
See Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp., 839 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988); Johns-Manville Corp. v. Equity Security Holders Comm., 801 F.2d 60, 61 (2d Cir.1986); H.R.Rep.
discussed
Cited "see"
Salvation Army v. Department of Community Affairs
See Market Street Mission v. Bureau of Rooming and Boarding House Standards, Department of Community Affairs, State of New Jersey, 110 N.J. 335 , 541 A.2d 668, 671 (N.J.), appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 882 , 109 S.Ct. 209 , 102 L.Ed.2d 201 (1988); see generally Gordon & Lazarus, New Jersey’s Rooming and Boarding House Act: Its Effects and Effectiveness, 12 Seton Hall L.Rev. 484 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Salvation Army (The) v. Department Of Community Affairs Of The State Of New Jersey
See Market Street Mission v. Bureau of Rooming and Boarding House Standards, Department of Community Affairs, State of New Jersey, 110 N.J. 335 , 541 A.2d 668, 671 (N.J.), appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 882 , 109 S.Ct. 209 , 102 L.Ed.2d 201 (1988); see generally Gordon & Lazarus, New Jersey's Rooming and Boarding House Act: Its Effects and Effectiveness, 12 Seton Hall L.Rev. 484 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Texaco, Inc.
See also Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp., 839 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir.1987) (notice of the bar date for filing proof of claims under Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(8) must be given “to satisfy due process requirements.... ”), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 201 , 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988); Reliable Elec.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pritchard et ux.
v.
Board of Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland
v.
Board of Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland
No. 88-253.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2) · D. Colorado (2)
Appeal from Ct. App. Md. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.