green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Richie v. State
See Kovash v. State, 519 P.2d 517, 522 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 52 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
E. Lee Cox and Becky Cox, D/B/A Pixy Pals Kennel v. United States Department of Agriculture
Goodman v. Benson, 286 F.2d 896, 900 (7th Cir.1961); accord George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 994 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974); Arab Stock Yard, Inc., 37 Agric.Dec. 293, 306 (1978), aff’d mem. 582 F.2d 39 (5th Cir.1978); see also Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182 , 93 S.Ct. 1455 , 1459 n. 5, 36 L.Ed.2d 142 (1973) (“‘Wilfully’ could refer to either intentional conduct or conduct that was merely careless or negligent.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
See abo Steinberg & Son v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 992, 994 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974); Zwick v. Freeman, 373 F.2d 110, 118-19 (2d Cir.) (noting that the sanctions desired by Congress according to § 499h(b) "could be harsh in some cases,” but finding the per se approach constitutionally valid), ce rt. denied, 389 U.S. 835 , 88 S.Ct. 43 , 19 L.Ed.2d 96 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Finer Foods Sales Co., Inc. v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, and United States of America
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 994 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Herm v. Stafford
See Arber v. Essex Wire Corp., 490 F.2d 414 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 56 (1974); Berman v. Gerber Products Co., 454 F.Supp. 1310, 1322 (W.D.Mich.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnny J. E. Meadows v. Lon Evans, Sheriff, Tarrant County, Texas
See, Garner v. Louisiana State Bd. of Educ., 489 F.2d 91 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974); Parker v. McKeithen, 488 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 838 , 95 S.Ct. 67 , 42 L.Ed.2d 65 (1974); Bricker v. Crane, 468 F.2d 1228, 1231 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 930 , 93 S.Ct. 1368 , 35 L.Ed.2d 592 (1973); P. I.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,323 Frigitemp Corp. v. Financial Dynamics Fund, Inc.
Hafner v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., 345 F.2d 167 (2 Cir. 1965); see Arber v. Essex Wire Corp., 490 F.2d 414, 420 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 56 (1974); Johnson v. Wiggs, 443 F.2d 803, 806 (5 Cir. 1971); Kohler v. Kohler Co., 319 F.2d 634, 640-41 (7 Cir. 1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Department of Public Utility Control
We believe that the “opportunity to show compliance” provision represents a “second chance” doctrine, which allows a licensee the opportunity to “put its house in lawful order before more formal agency proceedings are undertaken.” Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. *803 Simon, 687 F.2d 1067,1074 (7th Cir. 1982), citing Blackwell College of Business v. Attorney General, supra, 454 F.2d 933 -34; see also George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 993-94 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S. Ct. 53 , 42 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawkins v. Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A.
(2×)
Id. at 119 ; see also George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 994 (2d Cir.) (agreeing with the Zwick court's determination that PACA's harsh restriction upon the employment of any person "responsibly connected" to a licensee found to have violated the PACA did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974). 40 Likewise, the Third Circuit used a rational basis analysis in Birkenfield v. United States, 369 F.2d 491, 494-95 (3d Cir.1966), to determine that the per se standard which Congress adopted in its 196…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Isaac Camacho v. Autoridad De Telefonos De Puerto Rico
Compare, e.g., Caribtow Corp. v. OSHRC, 493 F.2d 1064 , 1065-68 & nn. 2-10 (1st Cir.) (Occupational Safety and Health Act applicable in Puerto Rico), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 52 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974); Moreno Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 68, 71-73 (1st Cir.1958) (Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act applicable in Puerto Rico).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture and United States of America, Kuzzens, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture and United States of America, Charles M. Harris v. U.S. Department of Agriculture and United States of America
See also Steinberg & Son v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 992, 994 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 , 95 S.Ct. 53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 55 (1974); Zwick v. Freeman, 373 F.2d 110, 118-19 (2d Cir.) (noting that the sanctions desired by Congress according to Sec. 499h(b) "could be harsh in some cases," but finding the per se approach constitutionally valid), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 835 , 88 S.Ct. 43 , 19 L.Ed.2d 96 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zanfardino
v.
United States and Boria v. United States
v.
United States and Boria v. United States
No. 73-1659; No. 73-6864.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1974.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 496 F. 2d 887.