green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.1 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims”
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lifemark Hospital of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc.)
federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims
cited
Cited "see"
Mixon v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 42-43 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Kibunja v. Alturas, L.L.C.
R. 56(c); see Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hunt v. Occ Petro Corp
See Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 973 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S. Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Cable Holdings of Georgia v. Home Video, Inc., 825 F.2d 1559, 1561-62 (11th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Taylor v. District of Columbia
We reiterated the legal standards governing our review of a motion for summary judgment in Turner v. District of Columbia, 532 A.2d 662 (D.C.1987): Summary judgment is properly granted when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c); see Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 [ ] (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Wash. Tran. Auth. v. Dept. of Employ. Ser.
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aquatherm Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., Inc., 319 U.S. 448, 451 , 63 S.Ct. 1146, 1147-48 , 87 L.Ed. 1509 (1943), Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d *1392 958, 984 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(2×)
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56.
cited
Cited "see"
Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito America, Inc.
Accord Old Security, 740 F.2d at 1392 (relying on Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Karriem v. Gray
See Clay Properties, Inc. v. Washington Post Co., 604 A.2d 890, 893 (D.C.1992) (en banc) (quoting Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980)).
cited
Cited "see"
Central States Trucking Company v. J.R. Simplot Company
See Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Croskey v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Board
See Dowd v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Bd., 485 A.2d 212, 215 (D.C.1984). [5] Although this court has not reached the issue of who has the ultimate burden of persuasion in a case involving retirement benefits under D.C.Code § 4-616(a), traditionally "a party asserting or pleading an issue has the burden of proofi.e. burden of persuasion." Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); see also 31A C.J.S.
cited
Cited "see"
Lenkin v. Beckman
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41-43 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of DC
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
In re D.C.
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp.
See Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980), where the court held that “[i]f [a party] intentionally relinquished a known right, either expressly or by conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce that right, he has waived it and may not thereafter seek judicial enforcement.” See also Gutor International AG v. Raymond Packer Co., 493 F.2d 938, 944 (1st Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Turner v. District of Columbia
(2×)
II Summary judgment is properly granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c); see Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
See Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980). 20 Ingersoll's contract with Taiwan, as the district court interpreted it, called for under deck stowage.
cited
Cited "see"
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. M/V Bodena
See Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Lamphier v. Washington Hospital Center
See, *732 e.g., Nader v. deToledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41-42 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c).
cited
Cited "see"
Rustin v. District of Columbia
See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41 (D.C.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Willis v. Cheek, 387 A.2d 716, 719 (D.C.1978). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryant v. Associated Press & Daily News Publishing Co.
See Yiamouyiannis, supra. To grant summary judgment, this court must conclude that based on Bryant’s assertions no “reasonable jury could find malice with convincing clarity.” Id. at 939 (quoting Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 (1980)); see Guam Federation of Teachers, Local 1581 v. Ysrael, 492 F.2d 438 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 872 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
See Saversiak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Company, 606 F.2d 208 , 212-14 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980); Continental Coatings Corporation v. Metco, Inc., 464 F.2d 1375, 1379-80 (7th Cir.1972); Seven-Up Company v. O-So Grape Co., 283 F.2d 103 (7th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 869 , 81 S.Ct. 903 , 5 L.Ed.2d 859 (1961).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellen Moose v. United States of America
See United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1352 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980). 28 I am in full agreement with the proposition that "a legislative declaration of trust status for a particular fund is itself a congressional mandate, fully consistent with the Testan-Eastport standard discussed above, that the United States assume financial responsibility for its failure adequately to perform its fiduciary obligations." Whiskers v. United States, 600 F.2d 1332, 1335 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simonson v. United Press International, Inc.
See, Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 120 n.9, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2680 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); see, Nader v. deToledano, 408 A.2d 31 (D.C.App.1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bullock v. National City Mortgage Co.
R. 56(c); see also Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Kids Creek Partners, L.P.
“Estoppel focuses not on the intent of the party, but on the effects of his conduct upon the other parly, for even if he has not waived a known right, he may be estopped from enforcing it.” Vick, 75 B.R. at 249 ; see also Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Continental Insurance Co. v. Pooya
The burden of proof required to satisfy the summary judgment standard rests with the moving party who bears “the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Griva v. Davison, 637 A.2d 830, 836 (D.C.1994); see also Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jack Baker, Inc. v. Office Space Development Corp.
However, summary judgment will lie unless the dispute about a material fact is “genuine”; “there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 41-42 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Great Western Directories, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
See also Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 973 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Corp., 365 F.2d 629, 633-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 991 , 87 S.Ct. 600 , 17 L.Ed.2d 451 (1966); Gas Utilities Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 996 F.2d 282, 283 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 687 , 126 L.Ed.2d 654 (1994); Curtis v. Campbell-Taggart, 687 F.2d 336, 338 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1090 , 103 S.Ct. 576 , 74 L.Ed.2d 937 (1982). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mary Ellen Thomason v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
See, e.g., Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), certiorari denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 ; Mitchell, 579 F.2d at 348 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Brown
See, e.g., Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980) (right waived by conduct inconsistent with intent to enforce the right); Palermo v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 545 F.2d 286 , 295 n. 12 (2d Cir.1976) (estoppel prevents disavowal of contract in face of detrimental reliance on the contract), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 911 , 97 S.Ct. 2166 , 53 L.Ed.2d 221 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Seton Investments
See id.; see also Nader v. de *1258 Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 44 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
See People’s Counsel v. Public Service Commission, 474 A.2d 835 , 837 n.5 (D.C.1984); see also Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coca-Cola Co. Foods Division v. Olmarc Packaging Co.
(2×)
See also Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (CA 7 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980) (estoppel arises when a party’s conduct misleads another to believe a right will not be enforced and causes him to act to his detriment in reliance upon this belief).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Jack Anderson
See, e.g., Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union, 619 F.2d 932, 940 (2d Cir.1980) (“a judge in denying a defendant’s summary judgment motion must conclude that, based on the evidence asserted in the plaintiff’s affidavits, ‘a reasonable jury could find malice with convincing clarity,’ ” quoting Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 50 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.
See H & B Equipment Co. v. International Harvester Co., 577 F.2d 239 (5th Cir.1978); see also, Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 973 (5th Cir.1979) (plaintiff can sue for harm to unestablished business if he intended to start business and was prepared to do so), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 365 F.2d 629, 633 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 991 , 87 S.Ct. 600 , 17 L.Ed.2d 451 (1966); Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
See also Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 660 F.2d 255, 273 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 921 , 102 S.Ct. 1277 , 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982) ("[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation.” (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980)). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Association For Intercollegiate Athletics For Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
See also Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 660 F.2d 255, 273 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 921 , 102 S.Ct. 1277 , 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982) ("[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation." (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980)) 12 AIAW argues that the district court, even in the absence of direct evidence of specific intent, should have inferred this intent for attempted monopolizati…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
R. Anthony Marrese and Michael R. Treister v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
(2×)
See, e.g., Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958 , 984 n. 19 (5th Cir.1979), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria, 583 F.2d 378, 379 (7th Cir.1978), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(c) comment c, illustration 2 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors
See also Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 959, 984 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Co., 383 F.2d 358 (6th Cir.1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board Of Realtors
See also Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 959, 984 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1028 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980); Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Co., 383 F.2d 358 (6th Cir.1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southwire Co. v. Essex Group, Inc.
See also Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980), a breach of contract action, in which the court stated that an estoppel “arises only when a party’s conduct misleads another to believe that a right will not be enforced and causes him to act to his detriment in reliance upon his belief" (emphasis supplied). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Weiss v. Feigenbaum
See also Calhoun v. United States, 475 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.Cal.1977), aff’d, 604 F.2d 647 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 , 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980), in which it was noted that the standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, supra, applies to motions challenging subject matter jurisdiction.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodriguez v. Nishiki
See, e.g., Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 50 (D.C. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078 (1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mongeau v. Boutelle
See also Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 984 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1078 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rancho La Costa, Inc., dba La Costa Country Club
v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
No. 79-906.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Louisiana (1)
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.