green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
See Kline v. First Western Gov’t Secs., Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 488 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman v. Kline, 513 U.S. 1032 , 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc., 30 F.Supp.2d 726, 757 (D.N.J.1998); Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., 183 F.R.D. 377, 387 (D.N.J.1998); In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practice Lit., 975 F.Supp. 584, 611-612 (D.N.J.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Metz v. United Counties Bancorp
See Kline v. First Western Government Secs., Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 487 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1032 , 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); Huddleston, 640 F.2d at 543 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Riggs v. Schappell
See Kline v. First Western Government Securities, Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 487 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); Royal American Managers, Inc. v. IRC Holding Corp., 885 F.2d 1011, 1015 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rolec, Inc. v. Finlay Hydrascreen USA, Inc.
Accord, Holiday Inns Franchising, Inc. v. Branstad, 29 F.3d 383 (8th Cir.1994), aff'g McDonalds Corp. v. Nelson, 822 F.Supp. 597 (S.D.Iowa 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); Northshore Cycles, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, 919 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.1990); Morgan v. Kemper Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Youakim v. Mcdonald
See Pennington v. Didrickson, 22 F.3d 1376, 1388 (7th Cir.1994) (task of federal courts is to determine whether state statutory scheme conflicts with the Constitution or federal law, and not to mandate a more compatible alternative), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); Jenkins, 691 F.2d at 1233-34 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Youakim v. McDonald
See Pennington v. Didrickson, 22 F.3d 1376, 1388 (7th Cir.1994) (task of federal courts is to determine whether state statutory scheme conflicts with the Constitution or federal law, and not to mandate a more compatible alternative), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994); Jenkins, 691 F.2d at 1233-34 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Branson
See also Holiday Inns Franchising, Inc. v. Branstad, 29 F.3d 383, 384 (8th Cir.)(“in determining whether an impairment is substantial, and thus unconstitutional, a court should take into account whether the kind of contract or relationship that furnishes the subject matter of the dispute had previously been the subject of regulation.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1032 , 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994). “[A] contractual obligation is not impaired within the meaning that the modern cases impress upon the Constitution if at the time the contract was made the parties should have foreseen …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Westinghouse Securities Litigation. Margaret Alessi, Gloria Bertinato, Michael C. Christner, Anna Marie Eroshevich, Toby Feuer, Kanwal K. Gupta, M.D., Matthew Harlib, Stanley Hershfang, Arnold M. Jacob, Louise Jacob, David Jaroslawicz, David Kirschner, Nathan Kleinhandler, Gerry Krim, Peter Lagorio, Nelson Lovins, Donald McLennan Jacob Joseph Miller, Dr. Alexander Miller, Thomas Mitchell, Edward Murabito, Michael E. Nogay, Joseph Raschak, Richard Schwartzchild, Dr. Michael Slavin, Dr. Michael Solomon, Selma Solomon, Spring Creek Cardiomedical Center, Ruth Stepak, Jim Thompson, Patricia J. Vanartsdalen, Albert Zucker
To suffice, the cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions in the prospectus which the plaintiffs challenge. 48 ... [T]he prospectus here truly bespeaks caution because, not only does the prospectus generally convey the riskiness of the investment, but its warnings and cautionary language directly address the substance of the statement the plaintiffs challenge. 49 7 F.3d at 371-72 (citation omitted); see also Kline v. First Western Government Securities, Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 489 (3d Cir.) ("Trump requires that the language bes…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Westinghouse Securities Litigation
To suffice, the cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions in the prospectus which the plaintiffs challenge. ... [T]he prospectus here truly bespeaks caution because, not only does the prospectus generally convey the riskiness of the investment, but its warnings and cautionary language directly address the substance of the statement the plaintiffs challenge. *708 7 F.3d at 371-72 (citation omitted); see also Kline v. First Western Government Securities, Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 489 (3d Cir.) (“Trump requires that the language be…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
O'NEIL v. Appel
See, e.g., In re Software Toolworks, Inc., 38 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.1994), and Kline v. First Western Gov’t Sec., 24 F.3d 480 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 613 , 130 L.Ed.2d 522 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Doherty, Director, Illinois Department of Employment Security
v.
Pennington
v.
Pennington
No. 94-592.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1994.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.