green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.6 score
“congress intended erisa 'to occupy fully the field of employee benefit plans and to establish it "as exclusively a federal concern”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Edwards v. Akzo Nobel, Inc.
congress intended erisa 'to occupy fully the field of employee benefit plans and to establish it "as exclusively a federal concern
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
(2×)
romney ii
discussed
Cited "see"
Gibson v. City of Cincinnati
See Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir.1997) (“an inmate cannot simply fail to file a grievance or abandon the process before completion and claim that he has exhausted his remedies. . . .” (emphasis supplied) (citing Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414 , 417 n. 3 (6th Cir.), cert denied, 522 U.S. 906 , 118 S. Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997)); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (“proper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . ‘means using all steps that the agency holds out. . . .’” (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jordan v. Ashland Warden Lemasters
See Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n inmate cannot simply fail to file a grievance or abandon the process before completion and claim that he has exhausted his remedies or that it is futile for him to do so because his grievance is now time-barred under the regulations.”) (citing Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414 , 417 n.3 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 906 , 118 S. Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997)).
discussed
Cited "see"
MacArthur Rumbles v. Donald R. Hill Black and Beckett
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 421 (6th Cir.) (“Section 1997e(a), in contrast, contains neither the sweeping and direct language of [the statute at issue in Weinberger ] nor that statute’s explicit bar to district court jurisdiction.”), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997); Lacey v. C.S.P.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. KLLM, Inc.
See Romney v. Lin, 105 F.3d 806, 813 (2d Cir.) (there are cases in which a state law cause of action is preempted, but only a state court has jurisdiction to so rule), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 189 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David N. Bowman
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Basham v. Uphoff
We have held that exhaustion of remedies is now a mandatory requirement under the amended statutes, see Garrett v. Hawk , 127 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1997), but we emphasized in that case that the prisoner is required to exhaust only those administrative remedies that are “actually available.” Id. at 1267 . -5- Although we have not specifically ruled on this question, several courts have held that this section “does not impose exhaustion of administrative remedies as a prerequisite to jurisdiction.” Underwood v. Wilson , 151 F.3d 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1998); see Wright v. Morris , 111 …
cited
Cited "see"
Glover v. Johnson
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Glover v. Johnson
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Bolton v. Goord
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 423 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997); Malone v. Godinez, 1997 WL 222945 , at *2 (N.D.Ill.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ras Adisa Gamba OLUWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. GOMEZ, Dir Dept of Corr; Charles D. Marshall, Warden, Defendants-Appellants
See Wright v. Monis, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, —— U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , — L.Ed.2d - (1997) (declaring that the PLRA specifically states that § 3626 shall apply to pending actions).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lacey v. C.S.P. Solano Medical Staff
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 421 (6th Cir.1997) (“Section 1997e(a), in contrast, contains neither the sweeping and direct language of [42 U.S.C.] § 405(b) nor that statute’s explicit bar to district court jurisdiction.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997) (No. 96-1811); see also Palomino v. Stanton, No. C 96-2984, 1997 WL 350099 , at *2 (N.D.Cal.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth M. Zeran v. America Online, Incorporated
See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.1997) (holding language “No action shall be brought ...,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), to “expressly govern[ ] the bringing of new actions”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 263 , — L.Ed.2d — (1997); Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir.1996) (holding language “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment ...,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g), to govern the bringing of new actions or filing of new appeals).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Elk v. United States
See Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U.S. 561, 579 , 109 S.Ct. 1361 , 103 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989) (requirement must be “explicit”); McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479, 483, n. 6 , 91 S.Ct. 1565 , 29 L.Ed.2d 47 (1971) (requirement must derive from a "specific congressional command”); see also Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 420-21 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 263 (1997); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684 , 687 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1156 , 121 S.Ct. 1106 , 148 L.Ed.2d 977 (2001); Richard J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayhew v. Allsup
See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 273 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994); see also Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayhew v. Allsup
See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 273 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994); see also Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Stubblefield
This is because § 1997e(a) merely provides that "[n]o action shall be brought ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 420-21 (6th Cir.) (containing a similar analysis), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 263 , 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997); Lacey v. C.S.P.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
v.
Bush Ranch, Inc.
v.
Bush Ranch, Inc.
No. 96-1777.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2) · W.D. New York (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.