Stephens v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Stephens v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
120 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 32 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Purcell v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (orctapp, 1998-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Purcell v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.
Or. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Id. at 1259.
discussed Cited "see" Kent Davis and D. Kent Davis, P.C. v. Ledford White and M & M Joint Venture
Tex. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) (“If the trial amendment is not mandatory, then the decision to permit or deny the amendment rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Covenant Health System D/B/A Covenant Medical Center v. Dean Foods Company, a Certified Self-Insured
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See The State Bar v. Kilpatrick , 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) ( per curiam ) (decision to permit or deny trial amendment rests in sound discretion of trial judge if amendment asserts new cause of action or defense and thus prejudicial on its face), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994). [40] The opponent of the trial amendment has the burden of showing surprise or prejudice, and "[a] motion for continuance based upon the ground of surprise or prejudice is essential before the filing of a trial amendment will constitute reversible error." Resolution Trust Corp. v.…
discussed Cited "see" THI OF TEXAS AT LUBBOCK I, LLC v. Perea (2×)
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See The State Bar v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) (per curiam) (decision to permit or deny trial amendment rests in sound discretion of trial judge if amendment asserts new cause of action or defense and thus prejudicial on its face), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994). 40 The opponent of the trial amendment has the burden of showing surprise or prejudice, and “[a] motion for continuance based upon the ground of surprise or prejudice is essential before the filing of a trial amendment will constitute reversible error.” Resolution Trust Cow v. Co…
discussed Cited "see" texapp 2010
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See The State Bar v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) (per curiam) (decision to permit or deny trial amendment rests in sound discretion of trial judge if amendment asserts new cause of action or defense and thus prejudicial on its face), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" texapp 2010
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See The State Bar v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) (per curiam) (decision to permit or deny trial amendment rests in sound discretion of trial judge if amendment asserts new cause of action or defense and thus prejudicial on its face), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994).40 The opponent of the trial amendment has the burden of showing surprise or prejudice, and "[a] motion for continuance based upon sought to impeach this testimony with the stipulated order wherein he had been disciplined by the Colorado Board of Nursing in 1996 for administering Ativ…
discussed Cited "see" texapp 2010
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See The State Bar v. Kilpatrick , 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) ( per curiam ) (decision to permit or deny trial amendment rests in sound discretion of trial judge if amendment asserts new cause of action or defense and thus prejudicial on its face), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994). [40] The opponent of the trial amendment has the burden of showing surprise or prejudice, and "[a] motion for continuance based upon the ground of surprise or prejudice is essential before the filing of a trial amendment will constitute reversible error." Resolution Trust Corp. v.…
cited Cited "see" texapp 2005
Tex. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" State v. Delany
Tex. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d 769, 772-73 (Tex.1993), cer t. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2741 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994) and 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994). .
cited Cited "see" Bass v. City of Dallas
Tex. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d 769, 777 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2741 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994) and 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Bass, Jr., Elias Edward and Bass Automotive, Inc. D/B/A Safety Brake Service v. City of Dallas, Texas and Ed Bell Construction Company
Tex. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769, 777 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied , 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2741 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994) and 513 U.S. 812 , 115 S.Ct. 64 , 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Miga v. Jensen
Tex. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Curtis v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Tex. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., Inc.
D. Mass. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Takeall v. Pepsico, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 19, 20-21 (D.Md.1992) (distinguishing Seiler due to absence of evidence that party destroyed original in bad faith), aff'g, 14 F.3d 596 , 1993 WL 509876 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2742 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994); Data General Corporation v. Grumman Systems Support Corporation, 803 F.Supp. 487, 491 (D.Mass.1992) (distinguishing Seiler , in part, because “there is no suggestion that Data General has destroyed evidence or has acted in bad faith”), aff'g, 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir.1994).
discussed Cited "see" Spiers v. Maples
Tex. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); Libhart v. Copeland, 949 S.W.2d 783, 797 (Tex.App.—Waco 1997, no writ).
discussed Cited "see" Flume v. State Bar of Texas
Tex. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); Rangel v. State Bar of Texas, 898 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ).
discussed Cited "see" Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co.
S.D. Cal. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See School Dish No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1263 (9th Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2742 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994) (relief from judgment is appropriate if “the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law”).
cited Cited "see" Smith Detective Agency & Nightwatch Service, Inc. v. Stanley Smith Security, Inc.
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Waite Hill Services, Inc. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc.
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2740 , 129 L.Ed.2d 860 (1994); Greenhalgh v. Service Lloyds Ins.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rebecca Duwe v. Monte J. Duwe
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. , 787 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex. 1990); see also State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick , 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 ( 1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights
N.D. Ohio · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Under the O’Brien test, a regulation will be sustained if it is content-neutral and if “it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 377 , 88 S.Ct. 1673 ; see also Turner Broad., 512 U.S. at 662, 114 S.Ct. 2445 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robinson v. New Line Cinema Corp.
D. Maryland · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Takeall v. Pepsico, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 19, 21 (D.Md.1992) (“What must be shown is more than a bare possibility of access (which would amount to no more than conjecture) ....”), aff'd without op., 14 F.3d 596 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2742 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eaton v. National Broadcasting Co.
E.D. Va. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Takeall v. Pepsico, 809 F.Supp. 19, 22-23 (D.Md.1992) (granting summary judgment for Pepsico on the question of access because the plaintiff's evidence that he had submitted the jingle "You got the right one, Baby, uh-huh!” to several Pepsi-affiliated companies failed to establish that his "proposals were ever forwarded" to the alleged copiers), aff'd, 14 F.3d 596 (4th Cir.1993) (table), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 , 114 S.Ct. 2742 , 129 L.Ed.2d 861 (1994). 11 .
Stephens
v.
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services
No. 93-1629.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1994.
512 U.S. 1236
Published

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.