green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ronald Zepik v. Tidewater Midwest, Inc.
But see, e.g., Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983) (declining to effect “radical ... expansion” of Louisiana tort liability by applying enterprise or market share theories), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 (1984); Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co., 676 S.W.2d 241 (Mo.1984) (DES plaintiff cannot, absent state legislation codifying relaxation of traditional causation requirement, recover on market share or enterprise liability theories).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Young v. Quinlan
the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Young, II v. Quinlan
the totality of circumstances relevant to this inquiry comprises all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the afforded to sentenced inmates.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Paramount Pictures v. Video Broadcasting Systems
the unauthorized use of a trademark which has the effect of misleading the public to believe that the user is sponsored or approved by the registrant can constitute infringement.
cited
Cited "see"
McDonald's v. Robertson
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1)(a)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson
(2×)
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1)(a)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Philadelphia Detention Center
Courts cannot impose their own ideas of “how best to operate a detention facility.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 . “[I]f a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal— if it is arbitrary or purposeless — a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 ; see Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 991 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (…
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tex. v. American Tobacco Co.
See Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Joe A. Contreras, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee. In Re Circuit Breaker Litigation Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. Joe A. Contreras General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. The Estate of Charley Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Joe A. Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, and Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc. Joe A. Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. General Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply Inc. Xavier Contreras Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, and Pencon International, Inc. General Magnetics/electric Wholesale the Estate of Charley Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. In Re Circuit Breaker Litigation Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Co. Xavier Contreras Ac Circuit Breaker-Electric Supply, Inc. Joe A. Contreras Pencon International, Inc. The Estate of Charley Contreras General Magnetics/electric Wholesale Panelboard Specialties Wholesale Electric, Inc. Jaime A. Contreras, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (holding franchisee liable for displaying the original Burger King marks after its right to do so had been revoked), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); El Greco Leather Prod.
discussed
Cited "see"
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply Inc.
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (holding franchisee liable for displaying the original Burger King marks after its right to do so had been revoked), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); El Greco Leather Prod.
cited
Cited "see"
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Hanover Insurance
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bryson v. Fluor Corp.
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1011-12 (4th Cir.1983) (holding that the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII's 180-day administrative filing period provided “significant interpretive authority” for a similar provision under the ADEA), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Dynamics Corp.
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 707 F.2d 483, 489 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980) (stay appropriate in a Title VII case).
cited
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Town Of Highland Beach
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 100 Any confusion over the jury's damages award arose from the awkward and misleading special verdict forms, rather than from any deficiency of the evidence or the jury's misapprehension of that evidence, thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion. 101 Next, the Town contends that even if the damage award was not excessive, it fails to comport with the valuation requirements mandated in Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 833 F.2d 267 (11th Cir.19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Dale Strickler v. Gary Waters, Sheriff Commonwealth of Virginia City of Portsmouth Department of Corrections
See 452 U.S. at 346-47 , 101 S.Ct. at 2399 ; see abo Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984 , 999 n. 22 (3d Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
James Yarbrough, Individually and as Next Friend of Robert Yarbrough, a Minor v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1488 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eugene Hasenfus and Sally Hasenfus v. Richard Secord, an Individual, Corporate Air Services, a Pennsylvania Corporation Southern Air Transport, a Florida Corporation Albert Hakim, an Individual, Kasanee Sawyer, an Individual, Kasanee Sawyer, Administratrix of Sawyer, Wallace B., Deceased v. Richard Secord, an Individual, Corporate Air Services, Southern Air Transport, a Florida Corporation, Albert Hakim, an Individual
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 28 The district court committed no reversible error in the jury instructions or special verdict forms.
cited
Cited "see"
Hasenfus v. Secord
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Yarbrough v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1488 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gloria E. Foote v. Michael P.W. Stone, Secretary of the Army
See Vance v. Whirpool Corp., 707 F.2d 483, 488 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 and 467 U.S. 1226 (1984). 8 While this appeal was pending, however, the United States Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Stevens, and effectively negated the administrative exhaustion requirement by noting that the government no longer views exhaustion as necessary. 1 59 U.S.L.W. at 4345.
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. International Insurance
See Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983) (“departures [from earlier state law] are for the Louisiana courts, not for us”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
University System of New Hampshire v. United States Gypsum Co.
See Thompson v. Johns-Manville, 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984); Dawson v. Bristol Labs, 658 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D.Ky.1876); Marshall v. Celotex, 651 F.Supp. 389 (E.D.Mich.1987); Griffin v. Tenneco Resins, 648 F.Supp. 964 (W.D.N.C.1986); Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville, supra; Morton v. Abbott Labs, 538 F.Supp. 593 (M.D.Fla.1982); Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., supra, 533 F.Supp. 183 ; Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F.Supp. 1004 (D.S.C.1981); Gray v. United States, 445 F.Supp. 337 (S.D.Tex.1978); Farmer v. Newport, 748 S.W.2d 162 (K…
discussed
Cited "see"
Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of America, Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of America
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1012 (4th Cir.1983) (citing Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U.S. 572, 596 , 100 S.Ct. 800, 813 , 63 L.Ed.2d 36 (1981)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephen E. Carswell, Cross-Appellant v. Bay County, Lavelle Pitts, William Grigsby, Graham Belz, Thomas G. Merrill, Cross-Appellees
Regardless of this shortcoming, our review of the record and the jury’s verdict reveals no inconsistency. “[T]he Seventh Amendment demands that, if there is a view of the case which makes the jury’s answers consistent, this Court must adopt that view.” Aquachem Co., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 699 F.2d 516, 521 (11th Cir.1983); see Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Clayton v. Howard Johnson Franchise Systems, Inc.
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492-1493 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Downtowner/passport International Hotel Corporation v. Norlew, Inc. Little Rock Hotel Partners, Ltd. S & L Properties, Inc., General Partner
See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983) (stating that “[c]ommon sense compels the conclusion that a strong risk of consumer confusion arises when a terminated franchisee continues to use the former franchisor’s trademarks”), cer t. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
William E. Wilson v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
See Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1013-14 (4th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 and 467 U.S. 1226 , 104 S.Ct. 2678 , 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984) (Widener, J., dissenting).
cited
Cited "see"
Nos. 85-2293, 85-2431
See Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.1983) (Edwards ), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Case v. Fibreboard Corp.
See Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983) cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Hannon v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 567 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.La.1983); Prelick v. Johns-Manville Corp., 531 F.Supp. 96 (W.D.Pa.1982); Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 533 F.Supp. 183 (S.D.Ga.1982); In re Related Asbestos Cases, 543 F.Supp. 1152 (N.D.Ca.1982); Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533 (Fla.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Kile v. North Pacific Construction Co.
See Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.1983) (Edwards), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Romano v. Lynch
See Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984); White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680, 682-83 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1027 , 102 S.Ct. 1731 , 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Hendrick
(2×)
Moreover, "`the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.' Therefore a court can order only relief sufficient to correct the violation found." Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir.1982), quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 , 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1276 , 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); see Union *466 County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
King v. Arco Metals Co.
Id.; accord, Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.1983), cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Graham Webb International Ltd. Partnership v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc.
See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983) (falsely suggesting affiliation with trademark owner in a manner likely to cause confusion as to source or sponsorship constitutes infringement), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 514 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir.1975) (same); El Greco Leather Products Co., Inc. v. Shoe World, 806 F.2d 392, 395 (2nd Cir.1986) (finding trademark infringement where defendant sold plaintiffs uninspected shoes and inspection was integral part of plain…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoover v. Watson
It is clear that, in addition to the essential objective of insuring the detainee’s presence at trial, the government has legitimate interests which stem from its need to maintain institutional security and order and “to manage the facility in which the individual is detained.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 540 , 99 S.Ct. at 1874 ; see also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 993 (3d Cir.1983) (“It is plain that there is a legitimate governmental interest in effective management of a detention facility.”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diamond Enterprises USA, Inc. v. Steinsvaag
Compare Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1445-46 (10th Cir.1988) (jury compromise indicated by inadequate damages, close questions of liability and difficult deliberations) and Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat'l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 , 1514-15 (11th Cir.1983) (same) with Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764, 768-69 (1st Cir.1990) (affirming grant of partial new trial where only indication of juror compromise was inadequate damages award) and Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1487-88 (11th Cir.1983) (same), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). 15 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diamond D Enterprises USA, Inc. v. Steinsvaag
Compare Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1445-46 (10th Cir.1988) (jury compromise indicated by. inadequate damages, close questions of liability and difficult deliberations) and Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 , 1514-15 (11th Cir.1983) (same) with Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764, 768-69 (1st Cir.1990) (affirming grant of partial new trial where only indication of juror compromise was inadequate damages award) and Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1487-88 (11th Cir.1983) (same), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Santiago v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
See, e.g., Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984) (refusing to apply enterprise liability because Louisiana courts had not addressed the issue); Lee v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 721 F.Supp. 89, 94 (D.Md.1989), aff'd, 898 F.2d 146 (4th Cir.1990) (refusing to apply enterprise liability because plaintiff had failed to sue the *34 entire industry); Starling, 533 F.Supp. at 190-91 (relaxation of identification requirements should be left to the legislature); Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F.Supp. 10…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oreman Sales, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp.
Compare Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983) (“departures [from earlier state law] are for the Louisiana courts, not for us”), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed.2d 129 (1984) with Tallo, 544 So.2d at 455 (Schott, C.J., concurring) (any expansion of the duty in 9 to 5 should be solely by the Louisiana Supreme Court). 24 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matrix Essential, Inc. v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc.
See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 514 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir.1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cashie v. Harris Corp.
See also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1423 ; see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 , 1489 n. 5 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (considerations for attorneys prior to discharge of jury); Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1005 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton Intern.
Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1423 ; see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 , 1489 n. 5 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1599 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984) (considerations for attorneys prior to discharge of jury); Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1005 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hughes
See also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F. 2d 984 , rehearing den. 718 F. 2d 1247 (3d Cir.1983), cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 130 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Monmouth County Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro
See also Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 997 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Betts v. Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities
See also Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 707 F.2d 483, 487 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 102 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 and 467 U.S. 1226 , 104 S.Ct. 2678 , 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984) (“Congress intended conciliation efforts under § 626(d) to be a strict condition precedent to the initiation of any litigation in federal courts,” and “an absolute period of abstention by the federal judiciary.”) The contemporaneous filing of the original action together with the ADEA charge was clearly barred by § 626(d).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
June M. Betts v. Hamilton County Board Of Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities
See also Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 707 F.2d 483, 487 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 102 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 and 467 U.S. 1226 , 104 S.Ct. 2678 , 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984) ("Congress intended conciliation efforts under Sec. 626(d) to be a strict condition precedent to the initiation of any litigation in federal courts," and "an absolute period of abstention by the federal judiciary.") The contemporaneous filing of the original action together with the ADEA charge was clearly barred by Sec. 626(d).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Knop v. Johnson
See id. at 348 , 101 S.Ct. at 2400 (noting that the district court had not found that double celling had increased “violence among inmates”); see also Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 , 999 (3d Cir.1983) (in evaluating whether inmates have been deprived of their right to habitable shelter, a court must consider “all those circumstances that bear on the nature of the shelter afforded to sentenced inmates”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1600 , 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shackil v. Lederle Laboratories
See, e.g., Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F. 2d 581, 583 (5th Cir.1983), cert. den. 465 U.S. 1102 , 104 S.Ct. 1598 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 129 (1984); Morton v. Abbott Laboratories, 538 F. Supp. 593, 599 (M.D.Fla. 1982); Mizell v. Eli Lilly & Co. 526 F. Supp. 589, 596 (D.S.C. 1981); Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F. Supp. 1004, 1018-1019 (D.S.C. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New Motor Vehicle Board of California
v.
Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. Northern California Motor Car Dealers Assn., Inc. v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. and 49er Chevrolet v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp.
v.
Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. Northern California Motor Car Dealers Assn., Inc. v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. and 49er Chevrolet v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp.
No. 83-1183; No. 83-1185; No. 83-1195.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 19, 1984.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · D. Kansas (1)
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 146 Cal. App. 3d 533, 194 Cal. Rptr. 270.