green
Positive treatment
Trending · 121 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.5 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[interference with parental autonomy will be tolerated only to avoid harm to the health or welfare of a child.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[I]nterference with parental autonomy will be tolerated only to avoid harm to the health or welfare of a child.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McGarity v. Jerrolds
interference with parental autonomy will be tolerated only to avoid harm to the health or welfare of a child.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Richard McGarity and Teresa McGarity v. Corbin Jerrolds and Amber Jerrolds
nterference with parental autonomy will be tolerated only to avoid harm to the health or welfare of a child.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Ralston
o determine the common usage or ordinary meaning of a term, courts often turn to dictionary definitions for guidance.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Podlucky v. United States
A claim under the Tucker Act “accrues as soon as all events have occurred that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to bring suit . . . .” Id. at 1303.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jordan v. Helix Energy Solutions Grp., Inc.
See 29 C.F.R. § 541.708 . "[T]he general rule [is] that the application of an exemption under the [FLSA] is a matter of affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof." Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188 , 94 S.Ct. 2223 , 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). "[T]he ultimate determination of whether an employer qualifies for an exemption under the FLSA is a question of law." Singer v. City of Waco, Texas , 324 F.3d 813 , 818 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004) (citing Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 203 F.3d…
cited
Cited "see"
Donna Slawinski v. Mary E. Nicholas
See Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 114-15 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S. Ct. 1408 , 158 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2001), rev’d on other grounds, 536 U.S. 129 , 122 S.Ct. 1993 , 153 L.Ed.2d 132 (2002); Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mobile Medical International Corp. v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003), ("the Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction .... ”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Reilly v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 643, 650 (2010) ("This court also lacks, for that matter, jurisdiction over these claims under the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 , et seq., as jurisdiction over claims relying upon that statute lies solely in the district courts.’’) (footnote omitted). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Reilly v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 , 1315 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004); Define, 970 F.2d at 894 (section 1552 “does not mandate pay at all”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Banerjee v. States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction ----” (citing Murphy v. United States, 993 F.2d at 874 )), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Polk v. United States
See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
McClure v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
See Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Barber, 111 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tex.2003) (concluding constitutional questions were not moot before addressing merits of the petitioner’s claims), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004); Bd. of Adjustment v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex.2002) (“Before addressing the merits of this case, we must first determine whether the controversy has become moot.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ecology Services, Inc.
To satisfy the second element of a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she was harassed or otherwise discriminated against “because of” her protected class. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2; see also Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 , 331 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004); Smith v. First Union Nat.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ecology Services, Inc.
Moreover, “the nature of the conduct may indicate whether or not the conduct is _ unwelcome.” /d@ at 329. 42 To satisfy the second element of a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she was harassed or otherwise discriminated against “because of” her protected class. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2; see also Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 , 331 (4th Cir. | 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004); Smith v. First Union Nat.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re M.I.W.
See, e.g., Rosero v. Blake, 357 N.C. 193, 199-205 , 581 S.E.2d 41, 45-48 (2003) (describing the legislative reaction to this Court’s opinion in Jolly v. Queen, 264 N.C. 711 , 142 S.E.2d 592 (1965)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S. Ct. 1407 , 158 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. v. United States
L-3’s Cause of Action Accrued When the IG Report Was Issued A claim first accrues when “all the events which fix the government’s alleged liability have occurred and the plaintiff was or should have been aware of their existence.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004) (quoting Nager Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
O'BRIEN v. Town of Agawam
Compare, e.g., Herman v. Fabri-Centers of America, Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 589 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, Fabri-Centers of America, Inc. v. Chao, 537 U.S. 1245 , 123 S.Ct. 1353 , 155 L.Ed.2d 219 (2003) (concluding that “ § 207(h)(2) should be interpreted to include a workweek or work period restriction”), and Howard v. City of Springfield, 274 F.3d 1141, 1148-49 (7th Cir.2001) (refusing to permit application of cumulative credits based, in part, on concern that employers might manipulate overtime payments to take advantage of economic conditions), with Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kosmo v. United States
In a Tucker Act suit, claim first accrues within the meaning of the statute of limitations “when all the events have occurred which fix the liability of the Government and entitle the [Plaintiff] to institute an action.” Brighton Village Assocs. v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556, 557 (Fed.Cir.1988)); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1404 , 158 L.Ed.2d 76 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Coil
See, e.g., Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 817-18 (5th Cir.2003), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 67 Fed.Appx. 250 (5th Cir.2003), and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 1410, 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004); United States v. Rodriguez-Montelongo, 263 F.3d 429, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2001); Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 971 , 121 S.Ct. 1601 , 149 L.Ed.2d 468 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
“The FLSA requires any employee working over 40 hours in a week to be paid overtime, premium compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their ‘regular rate’ of pay.” York v. City of Wichita Falls, 48 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir.1995) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1)); see also Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 818 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 , 124 S.Ct. 1406 , 1410, 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004).
Stewart
v.
Dutra Construction Co.
v.
Dutra Construction Co.
No. 03-814.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 2004.
540 U.S. 1177
C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal and Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.