green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1986 ·
…inasmuch as furnished its employee lopez with the benefits required by the , it is not subject to a claim for contribution
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Russell L. Ketchum v. Gulf Oil Corporation, Travelers Insurance Company, Huthnance Drilling Company, and South State Insurance Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
inasmuch as furnished its employee lopez with the benefits required by the , it is not subject to a claim for contribution
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ketchum v. Gulf Oil Corp.
inasmuch as furnished its employee lopez with the benefits required by the , it is not subject to a claim for contribution
discussed
Cited "see"
Kathy L. Lavoie, Formerly Known as Kathy L. Labelle v. Pacific Press & Shear Company, a Division of Canron Corp., and Canron Corp.
See Lopez v. Oldendorf 545 F.2d 836, 839 (2d Cir.1976) (objection to allegedly inconsistent verdicts waived when party failed to object to charge which instructed jury “you must consider and make a separate determination as to this second or alternative theory no matter how you decide the [first] theory”), ce rt. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2650 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Local 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio
See Usery v. Local 720, Laborers’ International Union of North America, 547 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir.1977), certiorari denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 ; Hodgson v. Charles Martin Inspectors of Petroleum, Inc., 459 F.2d 303, 306 (5th Cir.1972); Wirtz v. Continental Finance & Loan Co., 326 F.2d 561, 563-564 (5th Cir.1964); Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F.2d 633, 637 (3d Cir.1959).
examined
Cited "see"
Klaus Zoelsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 115 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977); Continental Grain (Australia) Pty.
discussed
Cited "see"
William J. Beer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Beer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 64 T.C. 879 (1975), aff’d without published opinion, 77-2 U.S.T.C. at ¶ 9491 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2650 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roderick v. Bugge
It stated that the “giving of the signals [to the winchman] under the circumstances of this case was not the giving of orders, but of information, and the obedience to those signals showed cooperation rather than subordination. ...” 212 U.S. at 226 , 29 S.Ct. at 256 ; accord, e.g., Lopez v. Oldendorf 545 F.2d 836, 839 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2650 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977); Wilson v. Nooter Corp., 475 F.2d at 501 n. 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grason Electric Co. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
In short, although the court will entertain such a motion, “[t]he moving party is subject to a ‘particularly rigorous’ burden in antitrust cases.” Aydin, supra at 902 , quoting Mutual Fund Investors, Inc. v. Putnam Management Co., 553 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977); accord, Javelin Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 546 F.2d 276, 280 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2651 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grunenthal Gmbh v. Hotz
See SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 114 (3d Cir.) (“The federal securities laws, in our view, do grant jurisdiction in transnational securities cases where at least some activity designed to further the fraudulent scheme occurs within this country.”), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grunenthal v. Hotz
See SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 114 (3d Cir.) ("The federal securities laws, in our view, do grant jurisdiction in transnational securities cases where at least some activity designed to further the fraudulent scheme occurs within this country."), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977). 17 We believe that the test used by the Third and Eighth Circuits advances the policies underlying federal securities laws.
cited
Cited "see"
Jack A. Doca and Fannie C. Doca v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, S.A. And Pittston Stevedoring Corp.
See Lopez v. Oldendorf, 545 F.2d 836 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2650 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977); Hurdrich v. Eastmount Shipping Corp., 503 F.2d 397 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re United States of America, Socialist Workers Party v. The Attorney General
See Usery v. Local 720, Laborers’ International Union of North America, 547 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977); Hodgson v. Charles Martin Inspectors of Petroleum, Inc., 459 F.2d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 1972); Wirtz v. Continental Finance & Loan Co., 326 F.2d 561, 563-64 (5th Cir. 1964); Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F.2d 633, 637 (3d Cir. 1959); Hodgson v. Keeler Brass Co., 56 F.R.D. 126, 127-28 (W.D.Mich.1972); 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2374 at 762 (McNaughton Rev. 1961).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation
Citing the congressional policy question as relevant in the context of supporting the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in another case, the Second Circuit declared that “Congress did not want ‘to allow the United States to be used as a base for manufacturing fraudulent security devices for export, even when these are peddled only to foreigners.’ ” Psimenos, 722 F.2d at 1045 (quoting Vencap, 519 F.2d at 1017); see also SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 116 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977) (noting that the antifraud provisions of the United…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zurich Capital Markets Inc. v. Coglianese
Compare Bersch v. Drexel Firestone Inc., 519 F.2d at 987, 993 (2nd Cir. 1975) (conduct in United States must amount to more than just actions which are "merely preparatory,” and not insubstantial when compared with the conduct committed abroad, and the direct cause of the losses sustained by the foreign investors), and Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications Inc., 117 F.3d 900, 905 (5th Cir.1997), with SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 114 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 'L.Ed.2d 255 (1977) (jurisdiction where “at least some activity designed to further a fraudulent s…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Local 1804-1, International Longshoremen's Ass'n
See, e.g., Usery v. Local Union 720, 547 F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir.) (“The government recognizes that at an appropriate time, probably in connection with a pre-trial order, it must list its witnesses [whose identity it had previously withheld].”), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977); Secretary of Labor v. Superior Care, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 395, 397 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (“The Court is aware, however, that the privilege is not absolute and that at some point, defendant’s right to prepare a defense could outweigh the need for the privilege.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brock v. Gingerbread House, Inc.
We held that in the absence of a showing of substantial need in this discovery stage, the court erred in requiring “the premature identification and designation of trial witnesses” and reversed. 864 F.2d at 678 ; see also Usery v. Local Union 720, Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977) (extraordinary circumstances required to override qualified privilege of informants during preliminary proceedings not determinative of the merits); Usery v. Ritter, 547 F.2d 528, 531 (10th C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Gingerbread House, Inc., Patricia Jo Stone and James Stone, Defendants-Appellees/third Party v. Vicki Blatchley and Beth Nelson, Third Party
We held that in the absence of a showing of substantial need in this discovery stage, the court erred in requiring "the premature identification and designation of trial witnesses" and reversed. 864 F.2d at 678 ; see also Usery v. Local Union 720, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977) (extraordinary circumstances required to override qualified privilege of informants during preliminary proceedings not determinative of the merits); Usery v. Ritter, 547 F.2d 528, 531 (10th Cir.197…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
General Leaseways, Inc. v. National Truck Leasing Association, D/B/A National Truck Leasing System
Compare Javelin Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 546 F.2d 276, 279 (9th Cir.1976) (plaintiff “barred from recovery only when the illegal conspiracy would not have been formed but for ” its participation) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2651 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977) with Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co., 451 F.2d 3, 15-16 (4th Cir.1971) (recovery barred “when parties of substantially equal strength mutually participate in the formulation and execution of the scheme and bear equal responsibility for the consequent restraint of trade”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Chicken Antitrust Litigation
See, e.g., Javelin Corp. v. Uniroyal, 546 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2651 , 53 L.Ed.2d 256 (1977); Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 514 F.2d 690, 695 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1412 , 47 L.Ed.2d 349 (1976). 25 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
IIT v. Cornfeld
See e. g., SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109, 116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 938 , 97 S.Ct. 2649 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977); United States v. Cook, 573 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 119 , 58 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nard
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 76-1325.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 31, 1977.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.