green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney
See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 983 , 83 L.Ed.2d 984 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Dabney
See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 983 , 83 L.Ed.2d 984 (1985). 13 Because the work product doctrine is intended only to guard against divulging the attorney's strategies and legal impressions, it does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or facts contained within work product.
cited
Cited "see"
Gottlieb v. Wiles
See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 983 , 83 L.Ed.2d 984 (1985). .
cited
Cited "see"
Boffa v. Department of Public Aid
Ed. 1995, 2002 , 67 S. Ct. 1575, 1580 ; see United States v. Markgraf (7th Cir. 1984), 736 F.2d 1179, 1185 , cert, dismissed (1985), 469 U.S. 1199 , 84 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. Gmeinder
See, e.g., Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 983 , 83 L.Ed.2d 984 (1985); Audiotext Communications Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom, Inc., No. 94-22395-GTV, 1995 WL 625962 , at *7 (D.Kan.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lord v. Babbitt
Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-385 , 68 S.Ct. 1 , 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947) (“everyone is charged with knowledge of the United States Statutes at Large”); see also United States v. Markgraf, 736 F.2d 1179, 1185 (7th Cir.1984), ce rt. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 1154 , 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indiana National Corp. v. United States
“In interpreting a statute, this court’s function '... is to give effect to the intent of Congress.’ [United States v. American Trucking Ass ’ns, 310 U.S. 534, 542 , 60 S.Ct. 1059, 1063 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940).] The most persuasive evidence of this intent is the words selected by Congress.” Director, Officer of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104 , 1107 (7th Cir. 1981); see also United States v. Markgraf 736 F.2d 1179, 1182 (7th Cir.1984) (“We begin, as we must, with the language of the statute itself.” (citations omitted)), cert. dismissed, 469…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service James M. Davis, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Thomas A. Vongarlem, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service James M. Davis, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Appellants/cross-Appellees. State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Thomas A. Vongarlem, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Appellants/cross-Appellees
Id. at 637-38 (recognizing Secretary could choose to develop necessary substantive criteria for loan deferral program through either adjudication or rulemaking even though Secretary had previously refused completely to implement program); see also United States v. Markgraf, 736 F.2d 1179, 1185 (7th Cir.1984) (finding court could not "dictate the process through which the Secretary must act to articulate standards" for loan deferral program), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 1154 , 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985). 26 Finally, we cannot say that the Secretary has abused his discretion in choosin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
North Dakota ex rel. Board of University & School Lands v. Yeutter
Id. at 637-38 (recognizing Secretary could choose to develop necessary substantive criteria for loan deferral program through either adjudication or rulemaking even though Secretary had previously refused completely to implement program); see also United States v. Markgraf, 736 F.2d 1179, 1185 (7th Cir.1984) (finding court could not “dictate the process through which the Secretary must act to articulate standards” for loan deferral program), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 1154 , 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
J. Doe v. Linda Reivitz and John F. Erickson, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Otis Bowen and Kay Willmoth, Third-Party J. Doe v. Linda Reivitz, Individually and in Her Capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services and John F. Erickson, Individually and in His Capacity as Director of the Bureau of Economic Assistance of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, and Their Agents, Employees, Successors in Office, Assistants and All Others Acting in Concert or Cooperation With Them or at Their Control, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Kay Willmoth, Regional Administrator of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, in Chicago, Illinois, Third-Party
See, e.g., United States v. Markgraf, 736 F.2d 1179, 1184 (7th Cir.1984) ("Deference is more appropriate where the agency has actively interpreted the statute through rule making.") (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 1154 , 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985); Production Tool Corp. v. Employment & Training Admin., 688 F.2d 1161 , 1167 (7th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Doe v. Reivitz
See, e.g., United States v. Markgraf 736 F.2d 1179, 1184 (7th Cir.1984) (“Deference is more appropriate where the agency has actively interpreted the statute through rule making.”) (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 , 105 S.Ct. 1154 , 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985); Production Tool Corp. v. Employment & Training Admin., 688 F.2d 1161 , 1167 (7th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
v.
West, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
v.
West, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
No. 84-1072.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 6, 1985.
Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari and other relief dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.