green
Positive treatment
7.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Kelly
(2×)
The state has not yet filed any claim against the tribe...." Id. at 91.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Kelly
(2×)
The state has not yet filed any claim against the tribe...." Id. at 91.
discussed
Cited "see"
Powell v. Cusimano
See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634-35 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 , 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (applying rational basis analysis), see also Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 874 (6th Cir.1997) (same), Schroeder v. Hamilton School Dist., 282 F.3d 946, 957 (7th Cir.2002) (“Homosexuals have not been accorded the constitutional status of blacks or women.”), Ri-chenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 260-61 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 , 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 12 (1997); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948 , 117 S.Ct. 358 , 136 L.Ed.2d 250 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chemical Separation Technology, Inc. v. United States
See Lough v. Brunswick Corp., 86 F.3d 1113 , 1122 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[e]ach claim of the patent must be considered individually when evaluating a public use bar.”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 806 , 118 S.Ct. 43 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997) 25 Although the burden of proving that the invention was ready for patenting lies squarely on the defendant, it is helpful to review the record evidence bearing on this prong of the inquiry through the prism of the plaintiffs’ contentions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States
(2×)
See Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 932 F.Supp. 1284, 1292 (D.N.M.1996) (discussing differences between Class II and Class III gaming requirements, tribal-state compact’s role as “an additional requirement” for Class III gaming and tribal-state compact’s intended function as protection against infiltration of organized crime into high-stakes gambling), aff'd, 104 F.3d 1546 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997); see also S.Rep.
discussed
Cited "see"
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States
(2×)
See Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 932 F.Supp. 1284, 1292 (D.N.M.1996) (discussing differences between Class II and Class III gaming requirements, tribal-state compact's role as "an additional requirement" for Class III gaming and tribal-state compact's intended function as protection against infiltration of organized crime into high-stakes gambling), aff'd, 104 F.3d 1546 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997); see also S.Rep.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Minton v. Gunn
(2×)
See, e.g., Lough v. Brunswick Corp., 86 F.3d 1113, 1120 (Fed.Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 806 , 118 S.Ct. 43 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997); In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1989). .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State
(3×)
See, e.g., [ Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 104 F.3d 1546 (C.A.10, 1997)], cert den 522 U.S. 807 , [ 118 S Ct 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 ] (1997) (deciding that Governor of New Mexico lacked authority, under New Mexico Constitution or state statute, to bind state to tribal-state compacts).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tianna Joy, Steven Ward, Marci Stephens v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, Doctor Vickie Markavitch, Larry Beehler
Ass’n v. Knox County Bd. of Educ., 158 F.3d 361 (6th Cir.1998) (permitting suspicionless drug testing of school teachers and employees), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 46 , 145 L.Ed.2d 41 (1999); Aubrey v. School Bd. of Lafayette Parish, 148 F.3d 559 (5th Cir.1998) (allowing suspicionless drug testing of school custodian and safety sensitive employees); Stigile v. Clinton, 110 F.3d 801 (D.C.Cir.1997) (upholding random drug testing of employees with permanent passes to the Old Executive Office Building due to the government’s interest in protecting the President and Vice President), ce r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Saucedo-Tellez v. Perryman
Compare Aguilar, 50 F.Supp.2d 539, 543 (holding that the plain meaning of § 236(c) applied only to aliens immediately released from incarceration, not those released many years earlier) and California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 44 , 139 L.Ed.2d 11 (1997) (holding, in a suit by the state of California to force the INS to take criminal aliens into custody, that the INS’s decision when to arrest them under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 was within that agency’s discretion and therefore un-reviewable).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan Kirby Barrett v. Gerardo Acevedo
See, e.g., Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 263 (8th Cir. 1996) (First Amendment not violated by using service member's declaration of homosexuality as evidence of engaging in conduct inconsistent with military activity), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 45 (1997); United States v. Dunnaway, 88 F.3d 617, 618-19 (8th Cir. 1996) (First Amendment not violated by admitting evidence of defendant's racist views, behavior, and speech to prove discriminatory purpose and intent, an element of the crime); United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913 , 926 n.10 (8th Cir. 1996) (First Amendment would be violated by p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan Kirby Barrett, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Gerardo Acevedo, Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 263 (8th Cir.1996) (First Amendment not violated by using service member's declaration of homosexuality as evidence of engaging in conduct inconsistent with military activity), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 12 (1997); United States v. Dunnaway, 88 F.3d 617, 618-19 (8th Cir.1996) (First Amendment not violated by admitting evidence of defendant's racist views, behavior, and speech to prove discriminatory purpose and intent, an element of the crime); United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913 , 926 n. 10 (8th Cir.1996) (First Ame…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Able v. United States
See, e.g., Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 260-61 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 12 (1997); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 358 , 136 L.Ed.2d 250 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Able v. United States
See, e.g., Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 260-61 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 45 , 139 L.Ed.2d 12 (1997); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 358 , 136 L.Ed.2d 250 (1996). 13 In striking down the Act as failing to bear even a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest, the district court strongly suggested that in reviewing statutes that discriminate on the basis of homosexuality heightened scrutiny would be appropriate.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Johnson
(2×)
See State v. Rue, 72 N.M. 212, 216 , 382 P.2d 697, 700 (1963) (when two statutes enacted by the legislature cover the same subject matter, one of them in general terms and the other in a more detailed way, the two should be harmonized and construed together); see also Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 932 F.Supp. 1284, 1291 (D.N.M.1996) (seemingly ambiguous provision in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme either because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear or because only one of the permissible meanings produces substant…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pueblo of Santa Ana
v.
Kelly, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico
v.
Kelly, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico
No. 96-1617.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.