green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Craig S. Strauss v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, and Chicago Police Officer John Doe
(2×)
We reversed the district court’s motion to dismiss, explaining that “[sjomeone is surely at fault for failing to establish or execute appropriate procedures for preventing such serious malfunctionings in the administration of justice.” Id. at 366.
discussed
Cited "see"
Penny v. United Fruit Co.
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, Rosenberg v. Johns Manville Corp., 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co., 270 N.Y. 287 , 200 N.E. 824 (1936).
examined
Cited "see"
Ruehman v. Village of Palos Park
(6×)
See Murray v. City of Chicago, 634 F.2d 365, 366-67 (7th Cir.1980), cert. dismissed, 456 U.S. 604 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 366 (1982); Mairena v. Foti, 816 F.2d 1061, 1065 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1005 , 108 S.Ct. 697 , 98 L.Ed.2d 649 (1988); Cornfield v. Consolidated High School District No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316, 1326 (7th Cir.1993); Ruehman I, 1992 WL 170565 at 27-28 (*11).
discussed
Cited "see"
Monte v. National Gypsum Company
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.1985) ("The New York Court of Appeals has stated repeatedly that the New York Statute of Limitations for inhalation, ingestion, or injection of harmful substances begins to run 'from the last exposure to the substance ...' "). 3 Moreover, in a Memorandum addressing the legislative purpose behind the revival statute, Senator Stafford noted that "an action must be commenced within t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Monte v. National Gypsum Co.
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 666 (2d Cir.1985) (“The New York Court of Appeals has stated repeatedly that the New York Statute of Limitations for inhalation, ingestion, or injection of harmful substances begins to run ‘from the last exposure to the substance ... ’ ”). 3 Moreover, in a Memorandum addressing the legislative purpose behind the revival statute, Senator Stafford noted that “an action must be commenc…
discussed
Cited "see"
Walsh v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
That section abrogated the New York Court of Appeals’ “ancient doctrine that in tort cases the statute of limitations runs from the date the injury is inflicted, regardless of when the injury is actually discovered.” McLaughlin, Practice Commentary to CPLR § 214-c; see Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), appeal dism’d, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Seckular v. Celotex
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y. 2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S. 2d 244 , 430 N.E. 2d 1297, 1298-1299 (Ct.App. 1981), amended 55 N.Y. 2d 802 , 447 N.Y.S. 2d 437 , 432 N.E. 2d 139 (Ct.App. 1981), cert. den. 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982) (statute of limitations begins to run upon inhalation of deleterious substance).
examined
Cited "see"
Tammy Thibodeaux, Thomas K. Thibodeaux and Tonya Thibodeaux v. Elton A. Arceneaux, Gayle Newton
(3×)
See Murray v. City of Chicago, 634 F.2d 365 (7th Cir.1980), cert. dism’d, 456 U.S. 604 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 366 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Charlotte E. Neubauer, Cross-Appellants v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Cross-Appellees v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Third Party Cross-Appellees
See Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (Ct. App.1981), certiorari denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re DES Cases
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981) (declining to interpret New York tort statute of limitations as running from time of "discovery" rather than time of "exposure" for latent injuries), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Rosenfeld v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ashley v. Abbott Laboratories
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981) (declining to interpret New York tort statute of limitations as running from time of “discovery” rather than time of “exposure” for latent injuries), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Rosenfeld v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.
See, e.g., Monte, 921 F.2d at 407 (citing Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.
See, e.g., Monte, 921 F.2d at 407 (citing Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, 1010-12 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245-46 , 430 N.E.2d 1297, 1298-99 (1981) (period of limitations ran from date of last employment-related asbestos exposure), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982); id. at 1012-13, 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (Fuchberg, J., dissenting) (“it would be unreasonable and perhaps unconstitutional to hold that his time to sue expired before it was possible for him to learn of the wrong”) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jack P. Racich and Gertrude C. Racich v. The Celotex Corporation
See, e.g., Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, 1010 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 , 430 N.E.2d 1297 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 967 , 102 S.Ct. 2226 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FINLEY, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
v.
MURRAY.
v.
MURRAY.
80-2205.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 17, 1982.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
Scott A. Mayer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joan S. Cherry.
John S. Elson, by appointment of the Court, 454 U. S. 1096, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
[*] Sybille Fritzsche filed a brief for the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amicus curiae urging affirmance.