green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.3 score
“to prevail via this direct method, a plaintiff must introduce direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged retaliatory motive actually relates to the question of discrimination in the particular employment decision.”
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Larsen v. Maynard, Inc.
to prevail via this direct method, a plaintiff must introduce direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged retaliatory motive actually relates to the question of discrimination in the particular employment decision.
cited
Cited "see"
Sharpe v. Cureton
See Cureton v. Sharpe, 528 U.S. 812 , 120 S.Ct. 47 , 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sharpe v. Cureton
See Cureton v. Sharpe, 528 U.S. 812 , 120 S.Ct. 47 , 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999). 21 A jury trial commenced on January 31, 2000, with the jury returning the following verdicts: Sharpe was awarded $2,500 in compensatory damages because Cureton and Ashe had retaliated against him for filing the complaint; however, he suffered no pre-complaint discrimination; W.
cited
Cited "see"
Oxy Usa, Inc. v. Babbitt
See Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 556 (10th Cir.) (citing Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 41 (1990)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
OXY USA, Inc. v. Babbitt
See Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 556 (10th Cir.) (citing Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 41 , 110 S.Ct. 929 , 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813 , 120 S.Ct. 48 , 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
OXY USA, INC. v. Babbitt
See Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 556 (10th Cir.) (citing Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 41 (1990)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Woodmore
See United States v. Carrigan, 804 F.2d 599, 603 (10th Cir. 1986) (“We have recognized the principle that witnesses in a criminal prosecution belong to no one, and that, subject to the witness’ right to refuse to be interviewed, both sides have the right to interview witnesses before trial.”); see also United States v. Ransom, 642 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The instructions as a whole need not be flawless, but we must be satisfied that, upon hearing the instructions, the jury understood the issues to be resolved and its duty to resolve them.” (quoting Medlock v. Ortho Biotech…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baker
v.
Hadley
v.
Hadley
No. 98-1813.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1999.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. Arkansas (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.