green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 ·
…the effect of in this case is solely to prevent a particular remedy ... does not deprive plaintiffs, if wronged, of any other remedy that would not 'restrain or affect' the exercise of the receiver's or conservator's powers or functions
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Trust For Historic Preservation In The United States v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
the effect of in this case is solely to prevent a particular remedy ... does not deprive plaintiffs, if wronged, of any other remedy that would not 'restrain or affect' the exercise of the receiver's or conservator's powers or functions
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. Federal Deposit Insurance
the effect of in this case is solely to prevent a particular remedy ... does not deprive plaintiffs, if wronged, of any other remedy that would not 'restrain or affect' the exercise of the receiver's or conservator's powers or functions
cited
Cited "see"
Trice v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 391–92 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S. Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shubert v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (In Re Winstar Communications, Inc.)
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); see also F. Alderete General Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 1476, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1983) (observing in government contracts action that “the decision below is at variance with the longstanding rule in the Federal courts that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit is filed and, after vesting, cannot be ousted by subsequent events, including action by the parties”).
cited
Cited "see"
El-Hakem v. BJY INC.
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 847 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Albritten v. Dougherty County, Ga.
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842 , 845 n. 1 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc.
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); see also F. Alderete General Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 1476, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1983) (observing in government contracts action that "the decision below is at variance with the long-standing rule in the Federal courts that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit is filed and, after vesting, cannot be ousted by subsequent events, including action by the parties").
discussed
Cited "see"
New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc.
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); see also F. Alderete General Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 1476, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1983) (observing in government contracts action that “the decision below is at variance with the ■ long-standing rule in the Federal courts that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit is filed and, after vesting, cannot be ousted by subsequent events, including action by -the parties”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paiva v. City of Reno
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 851 (9th Cir.) (recognizing distinction between Fourth Amendment “unreasonableness” and qualified immunity “unreasonableness,” and citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Feigel v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 393-94 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ramirez v. City of Reno
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 851 (9th Cir.) (recognizing distinction between Fourth Amendment “unreasonableness” and qualified immunity “unreasonableness,” and citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 392 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 392 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
McRae v. Tena
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 850 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 643 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3041 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), and rejecting the argument that an officer who has used excessive force cannot, by definition, have acted reasonably), cert. denied 502 U.S. 980 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991); see also, Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321 (9th Cir.1991) (affirming the trial court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity because under plaintiffs version of the facts, the officer could not reasonably have believed his condu…
cited
Cited "see"
Clyde C. Freeman and Nancy F. Freeman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Madison National Bank
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 391-92 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Raymond Sekula and L. Kathleen Sekula v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Resolution Trust Corporation, Raymond F. Sekula and L. Kathleen Sekula
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 388 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); 1 Gregory Pulles, et al., Firrea, Introduction (Supp. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Seklua v. FDIC, Inc.
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 388 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 582 (1991); 1 Gregory Pulles et al., Firrea, Introduction (Supp. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Triple B Farms, an Idaho Partnership v. Haney Seed Co., an Idaho Corporation, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 847-48 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Sav. & Loan Securities Litigation
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 847-48 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991). 18 Moreover, Wolfswinkel's claim that he is not subject to RICO treble damages even though he was found to have been a RICO coconspirator is otiose.
discussed
Cited "see"
Homeland Stores, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corporation, and Bob's Super Saver, Inc.
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 392 (3d Cir.) (holding that FIR-REA’s jurisdictional bar does encompass a claim arising from post receivership actions of the RTC), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Charles House Condominium Ass'n
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 388, 398 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Malinovsky v. Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County
(2×)
See State v. Malinovsky, 60 Ohio St.3d 20 , 573 N.E.2d 22 , 25 cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Alley v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for the Federal Asset Disposition Association. Margaret Elizabeth Aristeguieta v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for the Federal Asset Disposition Association
See 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(6)(A) 8 Plaintiffs do not dispute that the various rules of state law upon which they based their suits "relate to" employee benefit plans 9 Corroboratively, FADA's Personnel Policy Manual stated that the retention benefits were designed to assure employees "a reasonable period of opportunity, with income, to pursue other gainful employment." Policy No. 820 (Addendum), Employee Retention Plan § I (dated Sept. 29, 1988), reprinted in Alley Stipulated Appendix at 202 10 The case the Aristeguieta plaintiffs cite on this issue, Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 38…
cited
Cited "see"
Hill v. Imperial Savings
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jay M. Gross, as Trustee for Bell Savings Holdings, Inc. Money Purchase Pension Plan and Bell Savings Holdings, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Bell Savings Bank Pa Sa, in Receivership, Resolution Trust Corporation as Receiver Bell Federal Savings Bank, in Conservatorship, Resolution Trust Corporation as Conservator Resolution Trust Corporation as Receiver for Bell Savings Bank Pasa (\Rtc-Receiver\") and Resolution Trust Corporation as Conservator for Bell Federal Bank (\"Rtc-Conservator\"). In No. 92-1196 Resolution Trust Corporation
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 388 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991). 13 Initially, we must determine whether a federal court has the power to enjoin the RTC's behavior.
cited
Cited "see"
Gross v. Bell Savings Bank PaSA
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 388 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp.
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 391 n. 10 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991). 2 . 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (e)(7) provides as follows: (7) Provisions applicable to service contracts (A) Services performed before appointment In the case of any contract for services between any person and any insured depository institution for which the Corporation has been appointed conservator or receiver, any claim of such person for services performed before the appointment of the conservator or the receiver shall be— (i) a claim to be paid in accordance w…
discussed
Cited "see"
Telematics International, Inc. v. Nemlc Leasing Corporation
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 397-98 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); 281-300 Joint Venture v. Onion, 938 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir.1991), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 933 , 117 L.Ed.2d 105 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cescon v. Dove
See generally, Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 852-53 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Kozinski, J. concurring in part), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991) (discussing the scourge of drunk driving).
cited
Cited "see"
Serge Marquis v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Liquidating Agent of Hillsborough Bank & Trust Company, Eltrex International Corporation v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Liquidating Agent of Hillsborough Bank & Trust Company, Michael M. Mills v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Nashua Trust Company, James P. Goodrich v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Dartmouth Bank
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 393 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vancouver Furniture v. General Electric Retail Systems
See Hammer v. Gross, 884 F.2d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir.1988), vacated on other grounds, 932 F.2d 842 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 582 (1991). 6 To prove common law fraud 2 under Washington law Vancouver was required to establish the existence of: (1) a representation of an existing fact; (2) its materiality; (3) its falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person to whom it is made; (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person to whom it is made; (7) the latter's reliance on the truth of the repr…
cited
Cited "see"
Mills v. FDIC
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 393 (3d ___ ____ ___ Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 582 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Marquis v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 393 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Cooper v. Dupnik
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 845-46 (9th Cir.) (following Graham), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Michael Cooper, Husband, in His Own Capacity and as Parent of Abram and Adam Cooper, Minors Lidia Cooper, Wife, in Her Own Capacity and as Parent of Abram Cooper and Adam Cooper, Minors v. Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff, Pima County Tom Taylor, an Employee of Pima County Sheriff's Department Weaver Barkman, an Employee of Pima County Sheriff's Department, Michael Cooper, Husband, in His Own Capacity and as Parent of Abram and Adam Cooper, Minors Lidia Cooper, Wife, in Her Own Capacity and as Parent of Abram Cooper and Adam Cooper, Minors v. Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff, Pima County, and City of Tucson Tucson Police Department Peter Ronstadt Karen Wright Gene Scott Timothy O'Sullivan Kay McCall
See Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 845-46 (9th Cir.) (following Graham), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
James B. WHATLEY, et al v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION as Receiver for Continental Savings, a Federal Savings and Loan Association
See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); see also Praxis Properties, Inc. v. Colonial Sav.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kosicki v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Co. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376, 383 (3d Cir.1994); see also Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 391-92 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991) (noting that the “statutory exhaustion requirement is indicated by the language ‘except as otherwise provided in this subsection.’ Subsection (d) of § 1821 provides for de novo district court jurisdiction only after the filing of a claim with, and the initial processing of that claim ____”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Aljaf Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See, e.g., Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 396 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981 , 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Modular Homes, Inc.
“Although FIRREA does not explicitly mandate exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial intervention, the language of the statute and indicated congressional intent make clear that such is required.” Meliezer v. RTC, 952 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir.1992); see also Rosa v. RTC, 938 F.2d 383, 391 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Committee Disbursing Agent v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Valley Forge Plaza Associates)
See also Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 391 (3d Cir.1991) [ cert. denied, [— U.S. -,] 112 S.Ct. 582 [, 116 L.Ed.2d 608 ] (1991)]; Resolution Trust Corp. v. Elman, 761 F.Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Re First City Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 759 F.Supp. 1048, 1050 (S.D.N.Y.1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Trust For Historic Preservation In The United States v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See, e.g., Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 395 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See, e.g., Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 395 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Resolution Trust Corp. v. BEAUCHAMP CONST. CO.
Corp. v. Shain, Schaffer & Rafanello, 944 F.2d 129, 132 (3d Cir.1991) (emphasis added); see also Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 391 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John F. McGonigle Virginia M. McGonigle v. Leslie Combs, Ii, Robert D. Stratmore v. Leslie Combs, Ii, Blas R. Casares v. Brownell Combs, Ii, Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C., a Kentucky Professional Corporation Frank L. Bryant Robert J. McGuiness Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Garth Guy Central Bank & Trust of Lexington, a Kentucky Banking Corporation, and Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Leslie Combs, Ii, George E. Layman and George E. Layman, Jr., D/B/A Forest Acres Partnership, a Washington General Partnership Barry K. Schwartz and Calvin Klein, D/B/A Barry K. Schwartz Partnership, a New York General Partnership Earl H. Shultz Kenneth Franzheim, II v. Brownell Combs, II Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Robert J. McGuinness Garth Guy Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C., a Kentucky Professional Corporation Frank L. Bryant, Blas R. Casares v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Leslie Combs, II Brownell Combs, II Garth Guy Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C., a Kentucky Professional Corporation Frank L. Bryant Robert J. McGuinness Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Central Bank & Trust of Lexington, a Kentucky Banking Corporation, James H. Griggs, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Brownell Combs, II Garth Guy Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C., a Kentucky Professional Corporation Frank L. Bryant Robert J. McGuinness Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Central Bank and Trust Co., a Kentucky Banking Corporation Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Zenya Yoshida, D/B/A Shadai Farm v. Brownell Combs, II Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C., a Kentucky Professional Corporation Frank L. Bryant Robert J. McGuinness Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Garth Guy, Hamilton Partners, a Ohio General Partnership Frank E. Fowler James P. Coleman Mercer Reynolds, III William O. Dewitt, Jr. Northwood Thoroughbred Investors, a New York General Partnership Northwood Ventures, a New York Limited Partnership Peter G. Schiff Gateway Investment Partnership, an Ohio General Partnership Calvin Ingram v. Brownell Combs, II Garth Guy, Richard L. Schultz v. Leslie Combs, Ii, and Brownell Combs, II Garth Guy Bateman Eichler Hill Richards, Inc. Robert J. McGuiness Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Central Bank & Trust of Lexington Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C. Frank L. Bryant, Richard L. Schultz v. Bateman Eichler Hill Richards, Inc. Robert J. McGuiness Charles R. Hembree Kincaid, Wilson, Schaeffer & Hembree, P.S.C. Frank L. Bryant
We have interpreted this rule strictly and have stated that, "[i]n a civil case, we may not review a jury instruction in the absence of a proper objection." Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 638 (9th Cir.1991); see also Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 847 (9th Cir.) (plurality opinion) (en banc) (no appellate review of unobjected-to instructions even in cases of plain error), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991). 45 We have acknowledged a limited exception to our strict interpretation of Rule 51, however.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McGonigle v. Combs
We have interpreted this rule strictly and have stated that, “[i]n a civil case, we may not review a jury instruction in the absence of a proper objection.” Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 638 (9th Cir.1991); see also Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 847 (9th Cir.) (plurality opinion) (en banc) (no appellate review of unobjected-to instructions even in cases of plain error), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 607 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Barbara Ronda Meliezer, Wife Of/and Karl A. Loetzerich v. Resolution Trust Company, as Receiver for Home Savings and Loan Association
See e.g., Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 582 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991); Circle Indus.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Food Giant, Inc.
v.
Porter
v.
Porter
No. 91-263.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 2, 1991.
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2)
Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.