green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Newdow v. U.S. Congress
See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1083-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated by 534 U.S. 946 , 122 S.Ct. 340 , 151 L.Ed.2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir.1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Newdow v. U.S. Congress
See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1083-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), cert, granted and judgment vacated by 534 U.S. 946 , 122 S.Ct. 340 , 151 L.Ed.2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir.1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Newdow v. Us Congress
See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1083-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated by ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 340 , 151 L.Ed.2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir.1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, Inc.
See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1082-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), vacated, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 340 , 151 L.Ed.2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir.1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring); Am.
discussed
Cited "see"
Newdow v. US Congress
See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1088-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated by — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 340 , 151 L.Ed.2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir.1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise
Importantly, Justice O'Connor's concurrence is the controlling authority given that she concurred in the result on narrower grounds than those on which the plurality rested. 11 See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) ("When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.") (citation omitted); see also Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1076 (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise
Importantly, Justice O’Con-nor’s concurrence is the controlling authority given that she concurred in the result on narrower grounds than those on which the plurality rested. 11 See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”) (citation omitted); see also Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 106…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho
Importantly, Justice O'Connor's concurrence is the controlling authority given that she concurred in the result on narrower grounds than those on which the plurality rested. 11 See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) ("When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.") (citation omitted); see also Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1076 (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho
Importantly, Justice O’Con-nor’s concurrence is the controlling author ity given that she concurred in the result on narrower grounds than those on which the plurality rested. 11 See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”) (citation omitted); see also Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 10…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
v.
Textron Financial Corp.
v.
Textron Financial Corp.
No. 01-176.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 2001.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U. S. 424 (2001).