green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2003 ·
…we have found no provision of hola nor any particular regulation, and none have been cited to us, which expressly preempt the statutory action by the people for unfair business practices and the causes of action by the tenant plaintiffs for fraud, rico violations, etc.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.
(2×)
we have found no provision of hola nor any particular regulation, and none have been cited to us, which expressly preempt the statutory action by the people for unfair business practices and the causes of action by the tenant plaintiffs for fraud, rico violations, etc.
discussed
Cited "see"
John Doe, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District
See United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 928 , 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); see also Planned Parenthood, 290 F.3d at 1075 (stating there is no requirement that the speaker be able to carry out the threat).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McMillan
See United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 928 , 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); and United States v. J.H.H., 22 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Udc Chairs Chapter, American Association of University Professors v. The Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia
See Doe v. Gates, 981 F.2d 1316, 1322 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Arthur Daughenbaugh
See United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. Moore Engineering, Inc.
(2×)
See Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Mo., Inc., 989 F.2d 985 , 993 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. Moore Engineering, Inc.
(2×)
See Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Mo., Inc., 989 F.2d 985 , 993 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993). 6 Second, appellants argue that the district court erred in refusing to follow the state trial court's earlier denial of summary judgment in favor of the City.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Cosprophar, Inc.
(2×)
See Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 512, 524 (E.D.Mo.1991) (outlining the requirements of a “properly conducted” survey), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 989 F.2d 985 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, an Iowa Corporation v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Hawaiian Research, Ltd., an Iowa Corporation Corn States Hybrid Service, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, an Iowa Corporation v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Hawaiian Research, Ltd., an Iowa Corporation Corn States Hybrid Service, Inc., an Iowa Corporation
(2×)
It is the law in this circuit that "the substantial investment of judicial time and resources in the case ... justifies the exercise of jurisdiction over the state claim, even after the federal claim has been dismissed." North Dakota v. Merchant Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368 , 371 (8th Cir.1980) (en banc); see Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage--Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985, 993 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Hollingsworth, 931 F.2d 1295, 1307-08 (8th Cir.1991). 59 With these considerations of judic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc.
(2×)
It is the law in this circuit that “the substantial investment of judicial time and resources in the case ... justifies the exercise of jurisdiction over the state claim, even after the federal claim has been dismissed.” North Dakota v. Merchant Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368 , 371 (8th Cir.1980) (en banc); see Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage— Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985, 993 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Hollingsworth, 931 F.2d 1295, 1307-08 (8th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications Richard Balducci Kathleen Balducci
(2×)
See Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage— Missouri, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 512, 528 (E.D.Mo.1991), aff’d, 989 F.2d 985 (8th Cir.), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Byrd v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Doe v. Gates, 981 F.2d 1316, 1322 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 928 , 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George Hershel Barris, Jr.
See also United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir.) (conditional threats may be considered true threats), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conopco, Inc. v. May Department Stores Company
(2×)
See also Gilbert/Robinson Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985, 993 , 26 USPQ2d 1378, 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conopco, Inc. v. May Department Stores Co.
(2×)
See also Gilbert/Robinson Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985, 993 , 26 USPQ2d 1378, 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 338 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William McDermott United States of America v. Daniel McDermott
See R.A.V., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2546-47 ; Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 911-16 , 102 S.Ct. at 3424-27 (although offensive and coercive speech is protected by the First Amendment, threats of violence are not); see also United States v. Bettrickard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir.) (“The First Amendment affords no protection to those who utter direct threats of force and violence”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 337 , 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); United States v. Hayward, 6 F.3d 1241, 1250 (7th Cir.1993) (“some forms of expression, in this case cross burning used to intimidate, ar…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carrie Beverage Inc.
v.
Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
v.
Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
93-255.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1993.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.