Ricci v. California, 400 U.S. 1021 (1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Ricci v. California, 400 U.S. 1021 (1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Bathke (ca8, 1978-12-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Bathke
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corporation, 429 F.2d 873 , 879 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 584 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Aumiller v. University of Delaware, supra at 682; Richardson v. Civil Serv.
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Bathke
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corporation, 429 F.2d 873 , 879 (7th Cir. 1970), Cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 584 , 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971); Aumiller v. University of Delaware, supra at 682 ; Richardson v. Civil Serv.
cited Cited "see" (1974)
Wis. Att'y Gen. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stanley v. Illinois (1971), 400 U.S. 1020 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 , 91 S.Ct. 584 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jay Edwards, Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributor, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mere generosity of an award, however, does not justify an appellate court in setting it aside, and we cannot say that the award here, for the period of NET’s distributorship, exceeds “any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that could be based upon evidence before the jury.” Glazer v. Glazer, 374 F.2d 390, 413 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 831 , 88 S.Ct. 100 , 19 L.Ed.2d 90 (1967); see also Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp., 429 F.2d 873, 880 (7th Cir.1970) (“we must affirm unless the findings are beyond the pale of sane judgment”), ce rt. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fun Striders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ricci
v.
California
No. 899.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1971.
400 U.S. 1021
Published

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.