green
Positive treatment
7.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Durham Manufacturing Co. v. Merriam Manufacturing Co.
“If a gap exists in the statute of limitations for CERCLA actions under § 113(f)(1), it is one to be resolved by Congress.” Id.; see also Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1116, 1125 (N.D.Fla.1995) (refusing to borrow another statute of limitations where no triggering event under § 113(g)(3) had occurred or was likely to occur); Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery and Tire Service, 901 F.Supp. 906, 914 (M.D.Pa.1995) (holding that plaintiffs entering into a consent agreement with the EPA did not trigger the running of the statute of limitations under § 113(g)(3) for purpose…
discussed
Cited "see"
Solutia, Inc. v. McWane, Inc.
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 33 F.3d 96, 99-100 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 , 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co.
See United Technologies Corp. v. BFI, Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 98 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 , 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc.
See United Technologies Corp. v. BFI, Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 98 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 , 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Goodrich v. Betkoski
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 103 (1st Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Goodrich v. Betkoski
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 103 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boyce v. Bumb
(2×)
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.1994); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489, 1512-13 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Colorado & Eastern Railroad Co., 50 F.3d 1530, 1536 (10th Cir.1995); Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc., 889 F.2d 664, 672 (5th Cir.1989); Control Data Corp. v. S.C.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments
(2×)
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 33 F.3d 96, 99-100 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 , 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments
(2×)
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 33 F.3d 96, 99-100 (1st Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
SC Holdings, Inc. v. A.A.A. Realty Co.
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Ine., 33 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp.
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 98-103 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); Akzo Coatings v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 764-65 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Colorado & Eastern R.R.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hunnewell
(2×)
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 101 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741, 751-52 (1st Cir.1985); see also Greenwood Trust Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818, 827 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is ... a general rule that when Congress borrows language from one statute and incorporates it into a second statute, the language of the two acts should be interpreted the same way.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052 , 113 S.Ct. 974 , 122 L.Ed.2d 129 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Labonte, United States of America v. David E. Piper, United States of America v. Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, Stephen Dyer v. United States
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 101 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741, 751-52 (1st Cir.1985); see also Greenwood Trust Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818, 827 (1st Cir.1992) ("It is ... a general rule that when Congress borrows language from one statute and incorporates it into a second statute, the language of the two acts should be interpreted the same way."), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052 , 113 S.Ct. 974 , 122 L.Ed.2d 129 (1993). 53 Moreover, the Senten…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Piper
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning- ___ _________________________ _________ Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 101 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. _____________________ _____ denied, 115 S. Ct. 1176 (1995); United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., ______ _____________ ______________ 758 F.2d 741, 751-52 (1st Cir. 1985); see also Greenwood Trust ___ ____ _______________ Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818, 827 (1st Cir. 1992) ("It is . ___ _____________ . . a general rule that when Congress borrows language from one statute and incorporates it into a second statute, the language of the two acts should be in…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooper Distributing Co., Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, in 94-5570 v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(2×)
See Instructional Systems, Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp. 35 F.3d 813 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995) 3 Amana does not argue that the termination of its business relationship with Cooper was for "good cause," a concept that is "limited to failure by the franchisee to substantially comply with those requirements imposed upon him by the franchise." N.J.S.A.
cited
Cited "see"
Cooper v. Amana
See Instructional Systems, Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp. 35 F.3d 813 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1176 (1995). 8 Trader Horn, one of Cooper's larger retail dealers.
cited
Cited "see"
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc.
See United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Ekotek Site PRP Committee v. Self
See United Technologies v. Browning-Ferns Indus., 33 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
TransWestern Publishing Co. v. Multimedia Marketing Associates, Inc.
(2×)
Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03[A] at 13-28 (1997); see also Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir.1994) ("When the range of protectible and unauthorized expression is narrow, the appropriate standard for illicit copying is virtual identity."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1184 , 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995); Jane C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thorn EMI North America, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
See, e.g., CPC Int’l Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 831 F.Supp. 1091, 1102-03 (D.Del.1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1176 (Fed.Cir. 1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995); Mars, Inc. v. Conlux USA Corp., 818 F.Supp. 707, 718 (D.Del.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sun Co., Inc. (R & M) v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
See also United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 33 F.3d 96 , 103 n. 12 (1st Cir.1994) (noting that its holding that a PRP was limited to a § 113(f) contribution action was consistent with Key Tronic), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sun Co., Inc.(R & M) v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
See also United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 33 F.3d 96 , 103 n. 12 (1st Cir.1994) (noting that its holding that a PRP was limited to a § 113(f) contribution action was consistent with Key Tronic ), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995). [5] A civil action clearly is not a precondition for bringing a contribution action, either under CERCLA, see § 113(f)(1) ("Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under section 9606 of this title or section 9607 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson County Airport Commission v. Parsonitt Co.
See also United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995) (treating claim by liable party for reimbursement of costs as contribution action and holding that only parties not themselves liable under CERCLA may bring cost recovery actions under section 107(a)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp.
See, e.g., United Technologies v. Browning-Ferris, 33 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995); United *779 States v. Colorado & Eastern R.R.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bancamerica Commercial Corp. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
See also United Technologies Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 33 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.1994) (treating claim by liable party for reimbursement of costs as contribution action and holding that only parties not themselves liable under CERCLA (e.g., the government) may bring cost recovery actions under § 107(a)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Joe B. Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Company, a Delaware Corporation
Furthermore, "[t]o determine which statutory period applies, California courts look to the substance or gravamen of the complaint." McSweeney, 976 F.2d at 534 ; see also Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1, 22 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1176 (1995). 5 Here, Ritchey filed suit on March 10, 1990.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.
See, e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442-44 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1176 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995) (requiring copying of computer program to be nearly identical because Apple had freely licensed 90% of allegedly infringing program); Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir.1987), ce rt. denied, 485 U.S. 977 , 108 S.Ct. 1271 , 99 L.Ed.2d 482 (1988) (requiring greater showing of similarity between faetually-based works as opposed to between works of fiction).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Computer Curriculum Corp.
v.
Instructional Systems, Inc.
v.
Instructional Systems, Inc.
No. 94-1033.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1995.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Motions of Na[*1184] tional Association of Manufacturers et al. and Computing Technology Industry Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.