green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruce Peter Hazen, by and Through Movant Chris Legear (Intervenor), - Thomas Wright, Walter Smith, Dale Davis, Robert Lee Kern, Willie Lloyd, Albert W. Ware, Arthur Alan Poyner, Rick Dean Foster, George Segler, David Streets, Bryan Kirby Barrett, Jerry Mark, Bill Davis, Tim Florea, Herbert Schnee, Intervenor v. Michael v. Reagen, as Commissioner of Social Services of State of Ia David Scurr, as Warden of Isp Leonard Graves, - United States of America, Intervenor - David Dee, by and Through Movant Shawn Shelton (Intervenor), - Robert Lee Kern v. Lou v. Brewer, as the Warden at Isp Louis Galloway Donald Lynch James Pezley, - Robert Bartholomew, John Emmett, Gerardo Acevedo
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
"We do not see any basis for inferring that Congress meant federal consent decrees that are not based on [the required PLRA findings] to remain in effect and amenable to enforcement in state courts." Id. at 156. 4 In reaching its conclusion, the Second Circuit carefully distinguished between consent decrees, which are enforceable through the supervising court's exercise of its contempt powers, and private settlements, enforceable only through a new action for breach of contract.
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Gunter
See [Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 157 (2d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 824 , 120 S.Ct. 72 , 145 L.Ed.2d 61 (1999)].
discussed
Cited "see"
Everett Hadix, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Perry M. Johnson,defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees
See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir.) (en banc) (“Since prospective relief, under the set of definitions provided in the Act, includes a consent decree to the extent that the decree does not award compensatory monetary damages, we think it clear from the statute itself that, if those findings were not made in connection with the entry of the decree, and if the court does not proceed to make the requisite findings that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of a federal right, the Act requires the termination of such a consent decree.�…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bekar
See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 72 (1999); United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 839-40 (5th Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dixon
See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165 , 172-73 n.11, cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jaramillo
See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Hazen Ex Rel. LeGear v. Reagen
See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 156-58 (2d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 72 , 145 L.Ed.2d 61 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEO MCKINNEY
See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165 , 171 n.10 (5th Cir.) (noting that we are bound by the decisions of previous panels), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SINECIO VALADEZ
See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gourley
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 98-2040.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1999.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.