green
Positive treatment
0.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. v. Eggert
Co., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1791, 1808 , 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 732 (1994) (noting employee’s third party tort claims brought under California law not preempted by the LHWCA; finding California code provision reducing employee’s recovery by percentage of employer’s fault presents no actual conflict with substantive federal right), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1694 (1995); but see Holcombe v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Corp., 602 So. 2d 400, 402 (Ala. 1992) (holding that because LHWCA’s provisions for recovering erroneously paid compensation benefits are exclusive and no implied federal common law…
discussed
Cited "but see"
STEVEDORING SERV. OF AMERICA v. Eggert
(2×)
Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1808 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 (1994) (noting employee's third party tort claims brought under California law not preempted by the LHWCA; finding California code provision reducing employee's recovery by percentage of employer's fault presents no actual conflict *747 with substantive federal right), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1694 , 131 L.Ed.2d 558 (1995); but see Holcombe v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Corp., 602 So.2d 400, 402 (Ala.1992) (holding that because LHWCA's provisions for recovering erroneously paid compensation benefits are exclusive and no impl…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Louisiana
(2×)
See Campos v. City of Houston, 968 F.2d 446, 451 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (recognizing that three-judge panels like this one are courts "of limited jurisdiction and limited authority,” and noting that our inquiry is "whether a voting change is covered by Section 5, whether the preclearance requirements have been met and, if they have not, what remedy is appropriate"), ce rt. denied, 506 U.S. 1050 , 113 S.Ct. 971 , 122 L.Ed.2d 126 (1993). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. State of La.
(2×)
See Campos v. City of Houston, 968 F.2d 446, 451 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (recognizing that three-judge panels like this one are courts "of limited jurisdiction and limited authority," and noting that our inquiry is "whether a voting change is covered by Section 5, whether the preclearance requirements have been met and, if they have not, what remedy is appropriate"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1050 , 113 S.Ct. 971 , 122 L.Ed.2d 126 (1993). [12] Compare Brooks v. State Bd. of Elections, 838 F.Supp. 601 (S.D.Ga.1993) (three-judge court) (applying the traditional preliminary injunction test after…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF RUTLAND and Town of Bristol, Vermont
v.
INDUSTRIAL BANK OF JAPAN, LTD., etc.
v.
INDUSTRIAL BANK OF JAPAN, LTD., etc.
No. 92-756.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 11, 1993.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Denied.