green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press
See Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
Myers v. United States
See Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dooley v. City of Philadelphia
See Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149, 1157 (2d Cir.) (holding that fact that plaintiff held a senior position and gave *649 remarks during legislative hearing that were unfavorable to her organization did not outweigh plaintiffs First Amendment interest in testifying, even without a subpoena), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Leon v. County of San Diego
See Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Kaluczky v. City of White Plains
See Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149, 1158 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); Bates, 3 F.3d at 377 .
cited
Cited "see"
Kaluczky v. City Of White Plains
See Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149, 1158 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); Bates, 3 F.3d at 377 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeffries v. Bernstein
See Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149, 1160 (2d Cir.) (if the speech "so clearly touch[es] on matters of public concern, the government is required to demonstrate interference with the efficient functioning of the workplace"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); see also Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2900-01 , 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) (nature of employee's position determines whether the employee's speech "somehow undermines the mission of the public employer").
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeffries v. Harleston
See Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149, 1160 (2d Cir.) (if the speech “so clearly touch[es] on matters of public concern, the government is required to demonstrate interference with the efficient functioning of the workplace”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); see also Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2900-01 , 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) (nature of employee’s position determines whether the employee’s speech “somehow undermines the mission of the public employer”).
cited
Cited "see"
Loral Terracom v. Valley National Bank, a Federally Chartered Bank Citizens Bank Trust Co., a Kentucky Corporation and State Chartered Bank
See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Mason Ex Rel. Mason v. Schenectady City School District
See Piesco v. City of New York, Dep’t of Personnel, 933 F.2d 1149, 1160 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
RAJIV KHURANA v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.; KARRY TEEL; CARL HOLDEN; WILLIAM MALONE; I.H.S. RIVER REGION HOSPITAL OF VACHERIE, LA., INC
See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 502 U.S. 921 , 921, 112 S. Ct. 332 , 332, 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Corlett v. Tong
(See generally Mem. at 14–23; see also id. at 9 n.1.) Specifically, 26 Defendants raise several arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims concerning his use 27 of gender slurs in Philosophy 512: First, Defendants urge the Court to disregard Plaintiff’s 28 “new, self-serving allegations claiming that he used the words ‘pussy’ and ‘bitch’ to teach 1 course content” because they “contradict documents incorporated by reference into 2 Plaintiff’s complaint,” (see id. at 14; see also id. at 15–17), and are irrelevant given that 3 “Provost Tong was entitled to reasonab…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Flores v. Vantage Associates, Inc.
(2×)
Analysis 21 Through the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint on two grounds: (1) “Plaintiff is barred from bringing his claims 23 because he already resolved and released them in Flores I via the Settlement Agreement[,]” 24 (MTD at 1; see also id. at 9–10); and (2) “to the extent Plaintiff brings any claims that 25 aren’t already barred by the Settlement Agreement, they are barred under the Settlement 26 Agreement’s plain terms.” (Id. at 2; see also id. at 10–12.) The Court agrees with 27 Defendants that this lawsuit is the r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McGrath v. Dominican College of Blauvelt, New York
See, e.g., Ouaknine v. MacFarlane, 897 F.2d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); Cosmas v. Hassett, 886 F.2d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1989); Center Savings & Loan Association v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc., 679 F.Supp. 274, 277 (S.D.N.Y.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Penthouse International, Inc.
See, e.g., Ouaknine v. MacFarlane, 897 F.2d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); Cosmas v. Hassett, 886 F.2d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1989); Center Savings & Loan Association v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc., 679 F.Supp. 274, 277 (S.D.N.Y.1987).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Schmitz v. Mars, Inc.
See also Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ricotta v. State of California
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir.1987); see also Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991) (holding that a court may deny leave to amend a complaint and dismiss a case with prejudice if any amendment would be futile).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tarr v. Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.
See also Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 294 (9th Cir.1990) (“All of the circuit courts that have considered this issue have held that an employee who is wrongfully discharged for refusing to participate in an alleged pattern of racketeering activity lacks standing to sue under § 1962(c)”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 332 , 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991); Cardwell v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 821 F.Supp. 406, 409 (D.S.C.1993) (“ ‘The majority of federal courts view the retaliatory discharge claims brought by employees terminated because of their refusal to participate in w…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Busch
However, where the parties have relied solely on assertions made in affidavits or sworn statements to demonstrate the presence or lack of genuine issues of material fact, the nonmoving party “will have his [or her] allegations taken as true, and will receive the benefit of the doubt when his [or her] assertions conflict with those of the movant.” Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2716 (1983)); see also Piesco v. City of New York, 933 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 331 , 116 L.Ed.2d 2…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of New York, Department of Personnel
v.
Piesco
v.
Piesco
No. 91-359.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1991.
502 U.S. 921
Certiorari.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice White would grant certiorari.