green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.2 score
“one who seeks to overcome the principle of stare decisis should be prepared to offer compelling reasons which outweigh the public interest in the stability of legal doctrine.”
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Steffen
But see Steadman v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 369, 376-77 , 1968 WL 1558 (1968), aff'd, 424 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 869 , 91 S.Ct. 103 , 27 L.Ed.2d 109 (1970) (holding that identifiable events include bankruptcy filing, ces *394 sation of business, and liquidation of corporation).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education
one who seeks to overcome the principle of stare decisis should be prepared to offer compelling reasons which outweigh the public interest in the stability of legal doctrine.
cited
Cited "see"
McAller v. Smith
See Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc., 423 F.2d 916, 917-18 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 101 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970); see generally Thomas J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution v. North Bridge
See Bane v. Spencer, 393 ___ ____ _______ F.2d 108, 109 (1st Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 866 (1970); _____ ______ see also 10A Federal Practice Procedure, supra, 2741, at n.2 ___ ____ ___________________________ _____ (collecting cases holding that a grant of summary judgment with discovery outstanding constitutes clear error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution v. North Bridge
See Bane v. Spencer, 393 F.2d 108, 109 (1st Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 866 (1970); see also 10A Federal Practice Procedure, supra, 2741, at n.2 (collecting cases holding that a grant of summary judgment with discovery outstanding constitutes clear error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corporation v. North Bridge Associates, Inc.
See Bane v. Spencer, 393 F.2d 108, 109 (1st Cir.1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 866 , 91 S.Ct. 108 , 27 L.Ed.2d 105 (1970); see also 10A Federal Practice Procedure, supra, § 2741, at n. 2 (collecting cases holding that a grant of summary judgment with discovery outstanding constitutes clear error). *1209 Giving these additional factors due weight, and considering the record as a whole, we conclude without serious question that the court below abused its discretion in denying the borrowers’ third Rule 56(f) motion.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the Mental Commitment of Utley
See Smith v. Lane (7th Cir.1970), 426 F.2d 767, 768-69 , cert. denied 400 U.S. 874 , 91 S.Ct. 103 , 27 L.Ed.2d 109 ; Blinn v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 49, 50 . 4 The court’s finding of contempt was not based on a disturbance of the court’s proceedings but upon Utley’s failure to understand and comply with the court’s direction.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael L. Johnson
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Smith v. Lane, 426 F.2d 767, 769 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 874 , 91 S.Ct. 103 , 27 L.Ed.2d 109 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Anibal Ruiz Rodriguez v. Litton Industries Leasing Corp.
See Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc., 423 F.2d 916 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 101 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reeser v. Crowley Towing & Transportation Co.
See also Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc., 423 F.2d 916 (1st Cir.1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 101 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970) (movant must present compelling reasons which outweigh the public interest in the stability of a legal doctrine to be able to overcome the principle of “stare decisis”); United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515 , 95 S.Ct. 1155 , 43 L.Ed.2d 363 (1975) (“the doctrine of stare decisis is still a powerful force in our jurisprudence ...”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Messerschmidt v. United States
Compare Decca Ltd. v. United States, 190 Ct.Cl. 454, 460-62 , 420 F.2d 1010, 1014-15 (construing the means-plus-function claims in light of the specification), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 102 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970) with E.I.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. United States
Furthermore, once a location is acknowledged to be open to the public, “it is pointless to exclude the police alone, for that ‘would impede effective law enforcement while adding little to the individual’s interest in privacy.’ ” State v. Mooney, 218 Conn. 85, 97 , 588 A.2d 145, 153 (citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 330 , 116 L.Ed.2d 270 (1991); see also United States v. Perkins, 286 F.Supp. 259, 263 (D.D.C.1968), aff'd, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 179 , 432 F.2d 612 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 866 , 91 S.Ct. 108 , 27 L.Ed.2d 106 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Acosta
See e.g., United States v. Perkins, 286 F.Supp. 259 (D.D.C.1968), aff’d, 432 F.2d 612 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 866 , 91 S.Ct. 108 , 27 L.Ed.2d 106 (1970); United States v. Concepcion, 742 F.Supp. 503, 505 (N.D.Ill.1990), aff'd, 942 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814, 816 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Cruz Pagan, 537 F.2d 554, 557 (1st Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Luis Reveron Martinez
(2×)
See also Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc., 423 F.2d 916, 917 (1st Cir.) (departure necessitates "compelling reasons [adequate to] outweigh the public interest in the stability of legal doctrine"), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 101 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Campbell Taggart, Inc. v. United States
See, e.g., Steadman v. Comm'r, 424 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 869 , 91 S.Ct. 103 , 27 L.Ed.2d 109 (1970) (stock purchased by attorney to protect position as general counsel for corporation); Hagan v. United States, 221 F.Supp. 248 (W.D.Ark.1963) (stock purchased by salesman to ensure that corporation would buy exclusively from him). 25 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stevenson v. State
See also Imbler v. Craven, 298 F.Supp. 795 (C.D.Cal.1969), aff’d, 424 F.2d 631 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 100 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970); and United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Spain v. Rushen
See Sumner v. Mata, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 1306-07; see also Imbler v. State of California, 424 F.2d 631, 632 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865 , 91 S.Ct. 100 , 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Erickson
Cohen v. Cahill, 281 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1960); see, also, Bane v. Spencer, 393 F.2d 108 (1st Cir. 1968) (per curiam), cert. denied 400 U.S. 866 , 91 S. Ct. 108 , 27 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Joyner v. Wilson Memorial Hospital, Inc.
See also, Bane v. Spencer, 393 F. 2d 108 (1st Cir. 1968), cert. denied 400 U.S. 866 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 105 , 91 S.Ct. 108 (1970); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2741 at 731 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Harris v. Frank J. Pate, Warden
(2×)
Cohen v. Cahill, 281 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1960); see, also, Bane v. Spencer, 393 F.2d 108 (1st Cir. 1968) (per curiam), cert. denied 400 U.S. 866 , 91 S.Ct. 108 , 27 L.Ed.2d 105 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Surety Co. of New York
v.
Barrientos
v.
Barrientos
No. 428.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 19, 1970.
Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied. Reported below: — P. R. R. —.