green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Veile v. Martinson
Accordingly, we have not considered his argument, because “a party may not attack a decision with a view toward enlarging his or her own rights or lessening the rights of an adversary absent a cross appeal.” Hansen v. Director, OWCP, 984 F.2d 364 , 367 (10th Cir.1993); see Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645 , 647 n. 3 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932 , 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding this court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellees’ challenge to the district court’s summary judgment ruling for the appellants on one cause of action, where appellees did not cross-a…
cited
Cited "see"
Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)
See Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n, 54 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995); Urbano v. Bd. of Managers of N.J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Department
See Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645, 648 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). 18 Nor are we persuaded that the law was clearly established in March 1992 that defendants' decision to change the library hours and the hours of the corrections officer assigned thereto was sufficient to trigger liability under the "danger creation" theory.
cited
Cited "see"
Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Department
See Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645, 648 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Cumberland County Children & Youth Services
(2×)
See, e.g., Trigalet v. City of Tulsa, 239 F.3d 1150, 1154-56 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932 , 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995); Scott v. Clay County, 205 F.3d 867, 879 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000); Evans v. Avery, 100 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1210 , 117 S.Ct. 1693 , 137 L.Ed.2d 820 (1997); Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847 , 859 n. 11 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1063 , 115 S.Ct. 1692 , 131 L.Ed.2d 556 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Independent Enterprises Inc. Thomas Lozecki v. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority City of Pittsburgh
We have repeatedly held that the most important factor in determining whether an entity is an “arm of the State” for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment is “whether any judgment would be paid from the state treasury.” Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 659; see also Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n, 54 F.3d 1140, 1145 (3d Cir.), cert, denied. — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 340 , 133 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995); Bolden, 953 F.2d at 818; Urbano, 415 F.2d at 251 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Independent Entr Inc v. Pittsburgh Water
We have repeatedly held that the most important factor in determining whether an entity is an "arm of the State" for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment is "whether any judgment would be paid from the state treasury." Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 659; see also Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 54 F.3d 1140 , 1145 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 340 (1995); Bolden, 953 F.2d at 818; Urbano, 415 F.2d at 251 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vencius et ux.
v.
Morania Oil Tanker Corp.
v.
Morania Oil Tanker Corp.
No. 95-417.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 16, 1995.
Published
App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.