green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Iowa Vs. James Maximiliano Ochoa
Knights, 534 U.S. at 114 , 112 S. Ct. at 589, 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hansen, Jones & Leta, P.C. v. Segal
See In re Wes Dor, Inc., 996 F.2d 237 , 241 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 983 , 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Broitman v. Kirkland (In Re Kirkland)
See In re Wes Dor, Inc., 996 F.2d 237 , 241 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 983 , 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Child Support Enforcement (In Re Smith)
See In re Wes Dor, Inc., 996 F.2d 237 , 241 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 983 , 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund v. CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc. (In Re CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.)
See In re Wes Dor Inc., 996 F.2d 237 , 241 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991)).
cited
Cited "see"
Lyle G. Armitage, Jr. v. City of Emporia, Kansas
See Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Susan D. Whitaker v. Professional Investors Insurance Group, Inc.
See Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 589 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Raymond v. Mobil Oil Corporation
The Court has defined the statutory term "may become eligible" as requiring proof that the claimant has "a colorable claim that (1) he or she will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that (2) eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future." Firestone, 489 U.S. at 117-18 , 109 S.Ct. at 958 ; see also Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564 , 581 n. 16 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Raymond v. Mobil Oil Corp.
The Court has defined the statutory term “may become eligible” as requiring proof that the claimant has “a colorable claim that (1) he or she will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that (2) eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future.” Firestone, 489 U.S. at 117-18 , 109 S.Ct. at 958 ; see also Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564 , 581 n. 16 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 589 , 116 L.Ed.2d 614 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Romero
v.
Aguayo
v.
Aguayo
No. 91-601.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 2, 1991.
Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.