green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Starling
See Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 813 , 119 S.Ct. 47 , 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998), citing, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 , 113 S.Ct. 684, 687-88 , 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Donna Cockrel v. Shelby County School District
See Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364 , 368-69 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, 525 U.S. 813 , 119 S.Ct. 47 , 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998); Kirkland v. Northside Indep.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jevan Anderson
See Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582, 588-93 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 47 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Edwin Burilovich Linda Burilovich, as Next Friends on Behalf of Their Son, Bradley Burilovich v. Board of Education of the Lincoln Consolidated Schools Ron Greiner, Individually
See id.
cited
Cited "see"
Cockrel v. Shelby County School District
See Boring v. Bun *776 combe County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 813 , 119 S.Ct. 47 , 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Knussman v. Maryland
See Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582, 587 (4th Cir.1998) (finding plaintiff barred from recovering monetary damages in § 1983 suit from state officials acting in their official capacities because the state treasury would be affected and Eleventh Amendment immunity protects the states from § 1983 suits), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 47 , 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Reinbold v. Evers
See Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364, 367 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 47 , 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas G. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Joan B. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children Alexandra Reinbold Brandelin Reinbold v. Wayne K. Evers, Commander, Usn Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant, (Usn. Ret.), Thomas B. Reinbold Joan B. Reinbold, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children, Alexandra Reinbold and Brandelin Reinbold v. United States of America William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense Diana L. Healy John M. Schmidt, Individually and as Employee of the National Security Agency Kenneth Minihan, Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, Director, National Security Agency, in Their Official Capacities John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, in His Official Capacity Two Unknown Named Non-Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers, Individually and as Members of the United States Navy U.S. Department of Defense National Security Agency United States Department of the Navy, and Wayne K. Evers, Commander Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant
See Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364, 367 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 47 (1998). 48 While the Privacy Act permits an individual to contest the accuracy of the facts contained in an agency's administrative records, the Privacy Act does not permit an individual to force an agency to "rewrite history, changing the record in Orwellian fashion to pretend that it reached some other conclusion." See Douglas v. Agric.
discussed
Cited "see"
Urofsky v. Gilmore
Critical to a determination of whether speech touches upon a matter of public concern is whether the speech is "made primarily in the [employee's] role as citizen or primarily in his role as employee." Terrell, 792 F.2d at 1362 ; see Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364 , 368-69 (4th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that the discharge of a high school drama teacher as a result of her selection of a high school play was not violative of the First Amendment because the choice of the play did not involve a matter of public concern since the choice was made by the teacher in her capacity a…
discussed
Cited "see"
Urofsky v. Gilmore
Critical to a determination of whether speech touches upon a matter of public concern is whether the speech is “made primarily in the [employee’s] role as citizen or primarily in his role as employee.” Terrell, 792 F.2d at 1362 ; see Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364 , 368-69 (4th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that the discharge of a high school drama teacher as a result of her selection of a high school play was not violative of the First Amendment because the choice of the play did not involve a matter of public concern since the choice was made by the teacher in her capa…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commissioner of Revenue v. Mullins
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 47 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Friedrich LU
v.
Paul RAVIDA
v.
Paul RAVIDA
No. 97-1836.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1998.
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.