green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Enoch v. Gramley
Herrera , — U.S. at -, -, 113 S.Ct. at 869, 870 (O’Connor concurring, joined by Kennedy), — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 875 (White concur *730 ring), — U.S. at -, 118 S.Ct. at 876 (Blackmun dissenting, joined in relevant part by Stevens and Souter), But See — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 874 (Scalia concurring joined by Thomas); Milone v. Camp, 22 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Doe, Jane v. University IL
See Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. granted under the name Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 876 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Runyon
See Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. granted in part, 118 S.Ct. 876 (1998). 6 Hartsell v. Duplex Prods.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lopez v. UNION TANK CAR COMPANY
See Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490, 546 (7th Cir.1997), cert. granted sub nom., Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 876 , 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998) (Coffey, J., concurring and dissenting) (“as the law in this Circuit currently stands, hostile work environment claims for harassment on the basis of race are analyzed pursuant to a negligence standard”), citing Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264 (7th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jane Doe, a Minor, John Doe, Individually and as Father and Next Friend of Jane Doe, and Janet Doe, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jane Doe, United States of America, Intervening v. University of Illinois, a Public Corporation, Jane Doe, a Minor, John Doe, Individually and as Father and Next Friend of Jane Doe, and Janet Doe, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Jane Doe v. University of Illinois, a Public Corporation
See Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. granted under the name Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 876 , 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryant v. New Jersey Department of Transportation
“When Congress expressly delegates to an administrative agency the authority to make specific policy determinations, courts must give the agency’s decision controlling weight unless it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.’ ” ABF Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 510 U.S. 317, 324 , 114 S.Ct. 835 , 127 L.Ed.2d 152 (1994) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)); accord Yeskey v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 118 F.3d…
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. University of Illinois
See Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. granted under the name Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 876 , 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vicki CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanuel CLEAVER II, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
See, e.g., Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 123 F.3d 490 , 494-95 (7th Cir.1997) (en banc) (per curiam) (in a “welter” of opinions addressing different aspects of employer liability, making clear that a majority of the court agreed on a “negligence” standard for hostile-environment claims and “strict” liability for quid pro quo harassment, but not clearly placing retaliation in either category), petition for cert. granted in part, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 876 , 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998); Reed v. A.W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vicki Cross v. Emanuel Cleaver, II
See, e.g., Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 123 F.3d 490 , 494-95 (7th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam) (in a “welter” of opinions addressing different aspects of employer liability, making clear that a majority of the court agreed on a “negligence” standard for hostile-environment claims and “strict” liability for quid pro quo harassment, but not clearly placing retaliation in either category), petition for cert. granted in part, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 876 (Jan 23, 1998) (No. 97-569); Reed v. A. W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lopez
v.
Monterey County, California
v.
Monterey County, California
No. A-490.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 23, 1998.
Published
Application for stay of judgment of the United States[*1086] District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. C-91-20559, entered December 22, 1997, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted pending the timely docketing of an appeal in this Court. Should the jurisdictional statement be timely filed, this order shall remain in effect pending this Court's action on the appeal. If the appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order will remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.