green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
6.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc.
e cannot say that the defendants' belief that their copying constituted fair use was so unreasonable as to bespeak willfulness.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard
the marketplace of ideas, an important theme in the high school expression cases, is less appropriate description of an elementary school, where children are just beginning to acquire the means of expression.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
WALKER-SERRANO BY WALKER v. Leonard
the marketplace of ideas, an important theme in the high school expression cases, is less appropriate description of an elementary school, where children are just beginning to acquire the means of expression.
cited
Cited "see"
Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. Leach
See Princeton Univ. v. Michigan Document Svcs., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1156 , 117 S.Ct. 1336 , 137 L.Ed.2d 495 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bennett v. Yoshina
See Exhibit 15, attached to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Objections. • Although the federal lawsuit is mentioned in the House report, the plain language of both reports indicates that the legislation was designed to address the “immense amount of controversy' surrounding the results of the vote on the constitutional convention question.” See Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294 , 1304 *1150 (9th Cir.1996) (changes made by a university were in response to a Supreme Court decision, not to plaintiffs’ lawsuit), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1156 , 117 S.Ct. 1335 , 137 L.Ed.2d 495 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shkolnikova v. United States Postal Service
Conn. 2005) (“Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c), the proper defendant in an employment discrimination action brought by a federal employee is ‘the head of the department, agency, or unit.’ Thus, the proper defendant in a Title VII case brought by a [United States Postal Service] employee is the Postmaster General.”); see also Dodson v. Runyon, 86 F.3d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The district court dismissed the [Title VII] complaint because [the plaintiff] had named the Postal Service as defendant rather than naming the Postmaster General.”), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1156 (1997); Soto v. …
Goehring
v.
Del Junco
v.
Del Junco
No. 96-1197.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 31, 1997.
520 U.S. 1156
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Pennsylvania (2) · Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.