green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.2 score
“in the absence of any showing that the memoranda infected the fact-finder's determination of the issues at trial, we hold that the did not violate petitioner's rights to due process of law.”
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Baker
But see, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976) (court finds city employee had actual notice of injunction issued against city but doubts Rule 65(d) requires him to receive actual notice before he can be held in civil contempt). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Twitty
in the absence of any showing that the memoranda infected the fact-finder's determination of the issues at trial, we hold that the did not violate petitioner's rights to due process of law.
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. Key Bank National Ass'n
See First Nat’l Bank v. American Foam Rubber Corp., 530 F.2d 450 , 453 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 157 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronnie Gene Ellis v. J.D. Sharp, Individually and as Sheriff of Oklahoma County
See Whiteis v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 531 F.2d 968 , 972 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976). 7 To determine whether a strip search was reasonable under Fourth Amendment standards, we must balance " 'the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.' " Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393, 395 (10th Cir.1993)(quoting Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 559 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: v. Pearson
See Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 719 (1st Cir.) (applying harmless-error analysis where alleged ex parte contact caused no cognizable harm), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976); United States v. DeLeo, 422 F.2d 487, 499 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1037 (1970); see also Raytheon Co. v. Automated Business Sys., Inc., 882 F.2d 6 , 8 n.2 (1st Cir. 1989) (similar; involving arbitrator's ex parte contact).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: v. Pearson
See ___ Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 719 (1st Cir.) (applying ______ _______ harmless-error analysis where alleged ex parte contact caused no __ _____ cognizable harm), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976); United _____ ______ ______ States v. DeLeo, 422 F.2d 487, 499 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. ______ _____ _____ denied, 397 U.S. 1037 (1970); see also Raytheon Co. v. Automated ______ ___ ____ ____________ _________ Business Sys., Inc., 882 F.2d 6 , 8 n.2 (1st Cir. 1989) (similar; ___________________ involving arbitrator's ex parte contact). __ _____ B.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Donald Pearson
See Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 719 (1st Cir.) (applying harmless-error analysis where alleged ex parte contact caused no cognizable harm), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 158 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976); United States v. DeLeo, 422 F.2d 487, 499 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1037 , 90 S.Ct. 1355 , 25 L.Ed.2d 648 (1970); see also Raytheon Co. v. Automated Business Sys., Inc., 882 F.2d 6 , 8 n. 2 (1st Cir.1989) (similar; involving arbitrator’s ex parte contact).
discussed
Cited "see"
William Joyce v. Mary Ann Joyce
(2×)
See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Abel, 533 F.2d 1001, 1005 (6th Cir.) (Congress, in 1936 amendments, intended to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of limitation of liability complaints, but federal court may stay its proceedings pending outcome of the underlying state suit), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 158 , 50 L.Ed.2d 136 (1976); Ohio River Co. v. Carrillo, 754 F.2d 236 (7th Cir.1985) ("A shipowner seeking the Act's protection must file a complaint in federal court within six months of receipt of notice of a claim.”); see abo In re Vatican Shrimp Co., 820 F.2d 674 (5t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co. v. Holly's, Inc. (In Re Holly's, Inc.)
See First Nat’l Bank of Hollywood v. American Foam Rubber Corp., 530 F.2d 450 , 454 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 157 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976); Calligar, supra, at 384; Zinman, supra, at 25; Heileson & Hirsch, supra, at 561-63. 38 It appears the weight of authori *669 ty favors a contract validity and enforceability theory.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Tetracycline Cases
See Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir.) (award of attorney's fees to prevailing party in contempt proceeding in addition to compensatory sanction is proper and independent of damage award), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bernard v. American Cyanamid Co.
See Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir.) (award of attorney’s fees to prevailing party in contempt proceeding in addition to compensatory sanction is proper and independent of damage award), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.
Accord, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 353, n. 13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976) ("The orders of the Court must be obeyed, and to absolve a large or small corporate defendant from its responsibilities simply because the corporation has ordered compliance but has not sufficiently policed same, would be to open the door for wholesale disobedience of the Court.”). 10 .
cited
Cited "see"
Graves v. Kemsco Group, Inc.
See Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Graves v. Kemsco Group, Inc.
See Shakman et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 135 (1976). *1421 However, this court elects not to impose a separate fine, but rather to determine in a restrained, conservative and reasonable fashion the amount of damages sustained by the defendants, and to award attorney fees and costs.
cited
Cited "see"
Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc.
See First National Bank of Hollywood v. American Foam Rubber Corp., 530 F.2d 450 , 453 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 157 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 ] (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Mealer v. Everett Jones, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent
See Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 717 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 158 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976); United States v. De-Wolf, 696 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1982). 1 Although this court has yet to decide the question, we took the opposite position in dicta in United States v. Pineda, 692 F.2d 284 (2d Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Falstaff Brewing Corporation, General Brewing Company S & P Company v. Miller Brewing Company, and Philip Morris, Incorporated
(2×)
See Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 348-49 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976) (whether civil or criminal contempt depends on the nature of the relief requested) (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 298-99 , 67 S.Ct. 677, 698 , 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Carol Birney
See First National Bank of Hollywood v. American Foam Rubber Corp., 530 F.2d 450 , 453 n.3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 157 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Baker
See Golden State Bottling, supra, 414 U.S. at 179-180 , 94 S.Ct. at 422 -423 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658 , 692-93 n.32, 99 S.Ct. 3055 , 3078-79 n.32, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979). 6 But see, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976) (court finds city employee had actual notice of injunction issued against city but doubts Rule 65(d) requires him to receive actual notice before he can be held in civil contempt) 7 In its Memorandum Rega…
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Marlene Swimley v. Charlotte Nesbitt, Warden of Dwight Correctional Center
See Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 720 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 158 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976) (Massachusetts does not require accomplice instruction).
cited
Cited "see"
Malone v. A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.
Accord, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Abel, 533 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 50 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Burke v. Vose
See also Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 717-719 (1st Cir.1976), cert. denied sub. nom Cassesso v. Meachum, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 158 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Powers v. The Chicago Transit Authority
Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, 534 F.2d 735, 748 (7th Cir.1976); See also Shakman, et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976). *1363 When the purpose of a contempt sanction is to coerce compliance with a court order the court must consider: (1) the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy; (2) the probable effectiveness of the sanction in bringing about the result desired; and (3) the contemptor’s financial resources and the consequent seriousn…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayden v. Oak Terrace Apartments
“In civil contempt proceedings for violations of a consent decree, plaintiffs must prove the violations by clear and convincing evidence in the trial court.” United States v. Huebner, 752 F.2d 1235, 1241 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 62 , 88 L.Ed.2d 50 (1985); see also Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca7 1987
We hold that they are not. 7 "In civil contempt proceedings for violations of a consent decree, plaintiffs must prove the violations by clear and convincing evidence in the trial court." United States v. Huebner, 752 F.2d 1235, 1241 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 62 , 88 L.Ed.2d 50 (1985); see also Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ferrell v. Pierce
See, e.g., Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 533 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976); Vertex Distributing Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 892 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Greyhound Corp., 363 F.Supp. 525, 570 (N.D.Ill.1973), aff’d, 508 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tomas R. Trejo v. The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
See e. g., Whiteis v. Yamaha International Corporation, 10 Cir., 531 F.2d 968 , 972, cert. denied 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 157 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 , and Blim v. Newbury Industries, Inc., 10 Cir., 443 F.2d 1126, 1129 .
Cassesso
v.
Meachum, Warden
v.
Meachum, Warden
No. 76-42.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
Cited by 21 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
C. A. 1st dr. Certiorari denied.