green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Zenith Electronics Corp.
it is clear that the commission's action in the present circumstances does not conflict with that underlying purpose
cited
Cited "see"
A.M. ex rel. Law v. Grant
See Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215-216 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984) (distinguishing Spaulding).
cited
Cited "see"
AM BY AND THROUGH LAW v. Grant
See Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215-216 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984) (distinguishing Spaulding ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gun South, Inc. v. Brady
See Iowa Power and Light Co. v. United States, 712 F.2d 1292, 1294-97 (8th Cir.1983) (ICC could retroactively impose higher tariff to correct legal error), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984); Bookman v. United States, 453 F.2d 1263, 1265 , 197 Ct.Cl. 108 (1972) (allowing agency to reconsider decisions in absence of statutory or regulatory authorization after noting general rule that "[e]very tribunal, judicial or administrative, has some power to correct its own errors or otherwise appropriate to modify its judgment, decree, or order.") (quoting 2 K.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gun South, Inc. v. Brady
See Iowa Power and Light Co. v. United States, 712 F.2d 1292, 1294-97 (8th Cir.1983) (ICC could retroactively impose higher tariff to correct legal error), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 536 (1984); Bookman v. United States, 453 F.2d 1263, 1265 , 197 Ct.Cl. 108 (1972) (allowing agency to reconsider decisions in absence of statutory or regulatory authorization after noting general rule that “[e]very tribunal, judicial or administrative, has some power to correct its own errors or otherwise appropriate to modify its judgment, decree, or order.”) (quoting 2 K.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ray v. Recovery Healthcare Corporation
Compare Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that “a probation officer is entitled to the same protection [as prosecutors] when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case”) and Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (declining to extend absolute immunity to a probation officer who incorrectly revoked the plaintiff’s probation because the probation officer “acted at her own initiative and at a different phase of the criminal process less intimately associated with the judiciary”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 (1984), with Ar…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schiff v. Dorsey
See Griffin v. Leonard, 821 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that the court need not decide whether federal probation officer is entitled to absolute immunity for initiating parole revocation hearing, since officer would be protected by qualified immunity); see also Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214 (5th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984) (granting only qualified immunity to state probation officer who initiated probation revocation proceedings); Gelatt v. County of Broome, 811 F.Supp. 61 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Karen Kelly Austin, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Minors, Renee Chevelle Henry and Raenell Lynn Henry v. Ronald Borel and Janenne Trahan
See, e.g., Griffin v. Leonard, 821 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984)); Nelson v. Balazic, 802 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir.1986); Ray v. Pickett, 734 F.2d 370, 374 (8th Cir.1984). 50 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Linda A. Nelson, Paul R. Nelson, Evelyn Philbert, Laura Moore, and Charles Moore v. Denise Balazic, Dick Moore, and Bill Duncan
See also Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 , 104 S.Ct. 2150 , 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Iseley
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 83-5907.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1984.
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed informa paupe-ris denied. Appellant is allowed until May 14, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a statement as to jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.
Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens would dismiss the appeal.Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970).