Day v. Avery, 431 U.S. 908 (1977). · Go Syfert
Day v. Avery, 431 U.S. 908 (1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“since the plaintiff's constitutional rights have adequate protection in the court of appeals, congress' decision to place exclusive jurisdiction in this court is unchallengeable.”
75 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Semi-Alloys, Inc. v. Morio (nysd, 1980-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Semi-Alloys, Inc. v. Morio
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since the plaintiff's constitutional rights have adequate protection in the court of appeals, congress' decision to place exclusive jurisdiction in this court is unchallengeable.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Gordon
Mont. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wheeler, 285 Mont. at 402 , 948 P.2d at 699 . ¶29 Moreover, State v. White (Ariz. App. 1989), 773 P.2d 482, 484 , State v. Phillips (Ariz. App. 1983), 678 P.2d 512 , 514, and People v. Drummond (N.Y. 1976), 359 N.E.2d 663 , 664, cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977), involved routine contentions on appeal that the sentences imposed after plea agreements and entry of guilty pleas were illegal and did not involve arguments on appeal that pre-plea rulings violated the law or the constitution.
cited Cited "see" Martini v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
D.D.C. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Day v. Avery, 548 F.2d 1018 , 1029-30 & n. 61 (D.C.Cir.1976), ce rt. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977) (collecting cases).
discussed Cited "see" Hantover, Inc. v. Omet, S.N.C. of Volentieri & C.
W.D. Mo. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Day v. Avery, 548 F.2d 1018, 1022 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977) ("in cases not seeking enforcement of a substantive right existing under the Constitution or a federal law, capacity of a partnership to sue or be sued is determined by reference to the law of the forum State” under Rule 17(b)).
discussed Cited "see" Naartex Consulting Corporation, Russell Huff v. James G. Watt, Secretary of Interior
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
Furthermore, damages are “restricted in all cases to such damages as were the natural and proximate consequences, or the direct consequences, of the fraud, and to such damages as can be clearly defined and ascertained.” 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraud & Deceit § 343, at 461; see Day v. Avery, 548 F.2d 1018, 1028 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977).
cited Cited "see" Howard v. Riggs National Bank
D.C. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Day v. Avery, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 63, 70-71 , 548 F.2d 1018, 1025-26 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977); W.
discussed Cited "see" National Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Smith
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grutka v. Barbour, 549 F.2d 5 , 9-10 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977). 34 The case of Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets, 604 F.2d 73 (1st Cir. 1979), relied on by plaintiffs at oral argument for the proposition that First Amendment free exercise rights are subject to the same protection as are First Amendment free speech rights, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. 35 (d) Lack of Ripeness 36 Finally, even if the plaintiffs presented a case or controversy a challenge to the PDA at this time would also fail for lack of ripeness.
cited Cited "see" National Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Smith
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grutka v. Barbour, 549 F.2d 5 , 9-10 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" National Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Bell
D.D.C. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grutka v. Barbour, 549 F.2d 5, 9-10 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977). (d) Lack of Ripeness Finally, even if the plaintiffs presented a case or controversy a challenge to the PDA at this time would also fail for lack of ripeness.
cited Cited "see" Surinach v. Pesquera De Busquets
D.P.R. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Grutka v. Barbour, 549 F.2d 5, 10 (C.A. 7, 1977), cert. den. 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 . 9 *128 The Complaint filed in this case is hereby DISMISSED.
cited Cited "see" Grutka v. Barbour
7th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See 97 S.Ct. 1706 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc.
D.C. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Furthermore, in his complaint, Mr. Kitt only makes a blanket allegation that his “professional and personal reputations were damaged, and [that] he sustained other damages.” Indeed, he conceded during discovery, as the trial court noted, that “[s]ince the concert, his earnings, performances, and private teachings have increased.” To recover in the District, “appellant’s proof of damages [is] crucial.” Dresser, supra, 465 A.2d at 839 (citations omitted); see also Day v. Avery, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 63, 74 , 548 F.2d 1018, 1029 (1976) (per curiam) (“a sine qua non of any recovery for …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hughes v. State
Del. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Drummond, Ct.App., 40 N.Y.2d 990 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 67 , 359 N.E.2d 663 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977); In the Interest of D.D., Fla.App., 564 So.2d 1224, 1225 (1990).
cited Cited "see, e.g." National Bank of Washington v. Mallery
D.D.C. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b); see also Day v. Avery, 548 F.2d 1018 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , *26 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello
N.J. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Day v. Avery, 548 F.2d 1018, 1029 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 US. 908, 97 S.Ct. 1706 , 52 L.Ed.2d 394 (1977); Monteleone v. Trail Pontiac, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), writ denied, 395 So. 2d 1005 (Ala.1981); Beik v. Thorsen, 169 Conn. 593, 594 , 363 A. 2d 1030, 1031 (1975); Zeliff v. Sabatino, 15 N.J. 70, 77 (1954) (Burling, J., dissenting); Mumphord v. First Victoria Nat’l Bank, 605 S.W.2d 701, 704-05 (Tex.Civ.App.1980); D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Day
v.
Avery
No. 76-1249.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 2, 1977.
431 U.S. 908

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.