green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.6 score
“the amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the allegations of the complaint.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gerig v. Krause Publications, Inc.
the amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the allegations of the complaint.
cited
Cited "see"
Raccoon Recovery, LLC v. Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Kombinat
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Neiberger v. Hawkins
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold Fife v. Clarence Harmon etc.
See Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 50 F.3d 564 , 566 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995). *1175 The FLSA grants the Secretary of Labor broad authority to define the terms “executive, administrative, and professional” employees.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fife v. Harmon
See Murray v. Stuckey's, Inc., 50 F.3d 564 , 566 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995). 3 The FLSA grants the Secretary of Labor broad authority to define the terms "executive, administrative, and professional" employees.
discussed
Cited "see"
Watterson v. GMRI, Inc.
See Maxon v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 905 F.Supp. 976, 978-79 (1995)(citing as authority Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services Ltd.
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 872 (10th Cir.) (“A court lacking jurisdiction ... must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Barbara Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc. Ted C. Jacobsen, Agent Leo Jacobsen Ruth Kirby, President of Woodruff, Inc. Margaret J. Bennion Wayne Ivie John Goff
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 174 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc.
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 174 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Geoffrey E. MacPherson, Ltd. v. Brinecell, Inc.
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.) (“[I]f the parties fail to raise the question of the existence of jurisdiction, the federal court has the duty to raise and resolve the matter.”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Geoffrey E. Macpherson, Ltd. v. Brinecell, Inc.
See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.) ("[I]f the parties fail to raise the question of the existence of jurisdiction, the federal court has the duty to raise and resolve the matter."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kayser-Roth Corp.
See i.e., King v. Greenblatt, 52 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1995) (Rufo standard used in consideration of motion to modify decree correcting unconstitutional conduct at state-run treatment center), cert. denied , — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 175 , 133 L.Ed.2d 115 (1995); Consumer Advisory Bd. v. Glover, 989 F.2d 65, 67 (1st Cir.1993) (Dowell standard applied to enforce improvements to state institution for the mentally retarded); Mackin v. City of Boston, 969 F.2d 1273, 1275 (1st Cir.1992) (Rufo standard applied to consent decree requiring more minority representation in Boston Fire Department), cert. deni…
discussed
Cited "see"
Branch v. State
See Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 326-327 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 130 L.Ed.2d 110 (1994); Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 , 111 S.Ct. 371 , 112 L.Ed.2d 333 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Salman v. Arthur Andersen LLP
See, e.g., Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 863 , 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayer v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CHASE COUNTY
See Spinden v. GS Roofing Products Co., Inc., 94 F.3d 421 (8th Cir.1996) cert, denied„ — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1254 , 137 L.Ed.2d 334 (1997) (plant controller in charge of “essentially a one-man department” was an exempt administrative employee even though he spent most of his time doing bookkeeping functions); Reich v. Avoca Motel Corp., 82 F.3d 238 (8th Cir. 1996) (administrative exemption covers motel managers who spent a significant amount of time on-call and doing non-exempt work); Strieker v. Eastern Off Road Equipment, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 650 (D.Md.1996) (administrative exemption appl…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith Barney Inc. v. Vogele
See, e.g., Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995); see also 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harold Fife v. Freeman Bosley
See, e.g., Murray v. Stuckey's, Inc., 50 F.3d 564 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 174 (1995), and cases cited.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harold L. Fife v. Freeman Bosley
See, e.g., Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 50 F.3d 564 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995), and cases cited.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stricker v. Eastern Off Road Equipment, Inc.
See, e.g., Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 50 F.3d 564 , 570 (8th Cir.) (convenience store managers), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 174 , 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995); Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 675 F.2d 516, 520-22 (2d Cir.1982) (fast food restaurant assistant managers); Masilionis v. Falley’s, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 1224, 1229-30 (D.Kan.1995) (produce manager of a grocery store); Meyer v. Wors ley Cos., 881 F.Supp. 1014, 1017-21 (E.D.N.C.1994) (Scotchman store manager).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bennett Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
v.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
No. 95-43.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1995.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Kansas (1)
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.