green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Harold Jacob Mims, A/K/A Jacob Harold Mims
But cf. United States v. Roth, 430 F.2d 1137, 1140-1141 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 583 , 27 L.Ed.2d 633 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company
See Aloha, 776 F.2d at 815 n. 2 6 We first considered the omitted case doctrine in Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., 430 F.2d 994 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colonial Bank v. McLeod (In re McLeod)
See United States for the Use & Benefit of D’Agostino Excavators, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., Inc., 430 F.2d 1077, 1086 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971) citing, Davidson v. Bridgeport 8 Conn., 472 (1831).
discussed
Cited "see"
Winston B. Lewy v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Louis, 721 F.2d 254, 256 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 928 , 104 S.Ct. 1712 , 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984), and are designed to vindicate “substantial rights intended by Congress to be judicially enforced.” Gonzalez, 773 F.2d at 643 (emphasis added); accord Railway Labor Executives Association v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 430 F.2d 994, 997 (9th Cir.1970) (“Where ... the dispute grows out of the employment relationship and ... involves an attempt to impose a right which is incident to that relationship, the statutory forum is the [NRAB], absent a clear expression of legis…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Donovan
See United States v. Roth, 430 F.2d 1137, 1140-1141 (2d Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 1021 (1971) (informalpostindictment identification made at the request of the prosecutor with *650 out notice to counsel violated Sixth Amendment rights, but the court concluded in effect that the error was harmless because the incident did not taint the witness’s in-court testimony or infect the trial); Mason v. United States, 414 F.2d 1176 , 1181 n.23 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1984
See United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1081 n. 1 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 426 F.2d 709, 715 (5th Cir.1970); 3 J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambromovage v. United Mine Workers
See United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1081 n. 1 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021, 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 426 F.2d 709, 715 (5th Cir.1970); 3 J.
cited
Cited "see"
Estelle Jordan v. Lawrence Medley
See United States ex rel. *219 D’Agostino Excavators, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1083 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallace & Wallace Fuel Oil Co.
See United States Use of D’Agostino Excavators, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077, 1081 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Air Express International Corporation, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross
See NLRB v. Alamo Express, Inc., 430 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. *616 584, 27 L.Ed.2d 633 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Meinrath v. Singer Co.
See United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1087 (2d Cir. 1970) (Friendly, J., concurring), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Calvin R. Hopkins v. George P. Baker
(2×)
See United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1083 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Larson v. General Motors Corp., 148 F.2d 319, 322 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 745 , 66 S.Ct. 34 , 90 L.Ed. 445 (1945).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. McLaughlin
See note 5 infra. 433 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 1021 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Exchange Security Bank v. United States of America, Ellen Gregg Ingalls v. United States
See Bear Manufacturing Company v. United States, 7 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 152, 154-155 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 583 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Shephard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 27, 30 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 813 , 86 S.Ct. 29 , 15 L.Ed.2d 61 (1965); Allen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 1941, 117 F.2d 364, 368 ; Hudson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 630, 632 , cert. denied, 306 U.S. 644 , 59 S.Ct. 584 , 83 L.Ed. 1044 (1939); Cohen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 184, 185-186 , ce…
cited
Cited "see"
Newburger, Loeb & Co., Inc. v. Gross
See United States v. Heyward-Robinson Company, 430 F.2d 1077 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fun Striders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
Nonetheless, motive is relevant. 2 In a section 8(a)(1) discharge case, if an employer demonstrates a legitimate, substantial business reason for the dismissal, “the burden shifts to the Board to establish that the primary motivation for the discharge was to penalize the employee for his [protected activity].” NLRB v. William S. Carroll, Inc., 578 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1978); see Litton Dental Products v. NLRB, 543 F.2d 1085, 1087-88 (4th Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Elias Brothers Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (“motiv[ation] in part”); NLRB v. Fairview Hospi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re I/s Stavborg (O. H. Meling, Manager) v. National Metal Converters, Inc.
(2×)
See e.g., United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 , 1080 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 582 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971). 6 As this court stated in Verley, 477 F.2d at 210 , the language of9 U.S.C. 9 is quite specific in requiring an agreement by the parties to entry of judgment by a federal court before a federal court has jurisdiction to do so; section 9 states that a federal district court may confirm an artiration award 'If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. United Aircraft Corp.
See, e. g., Snyder Tank Corp. v. NLRB, 428 F.2d 1348 , 1350 (2d Cir. 1970) (per curiam), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 583 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. United Aircraft Corp.
See, e.g., Snyder Tank Corp. v. NLRB, 428 F.2d 1348 , 1350 (2d Cir. 1970) (per curiam), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 583 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America Ex Rel. Cleveland Reed v. Raymond Anderson, Warden, Delaware Correctional Center
(2×)
See, e. g., United States v. Roth, 430 F.2d 1137, 1140 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021 , 91 S.Ct. 583 , 27 L.Ed.2d 633 (1971).
Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
No. 872.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1971.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir.- Certiorari denied.