green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Jones
See, Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1076-1079 (C.A.7 1987), cert. dism’d, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Greenberg v. Sata, 822 F.2d 882, 885 (C.A.9 1987); Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F.2d 600, 603-604 (C.A.1 1988) ...
discussed
Cited "see"
Hofmister v. Mississippi State Department of Health
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1155 (5th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 930 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988) 12 , citing Hodgson v. Behrens Drug Company, 475 F.2d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir.1973) (adopting “substantially equal work” test).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Transportation Union v. South Carolina Public Railway Commission
(2×)
See Trans World Airlines v. Independent Fed’n of Flight Attendants, 640 F.Supp. 1108, 1113 (W.D.Mo.1986), aff'd, 809 F.2d 483 (8th Cir.1987), aff'd, 485 U.S. 175 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 150 (1988) (quoting Beatrice M.
discussed
Cited "see"
Vild v. Visconsi
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1084 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (holding that a reviewing court cannot tell whether the district court abused its discretion absent articulated reasons); Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 158 (3d Cir.1986) (holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion). 44 The district court has not provided a rationale to allow us to review whether it has abused its discretion by denying the defendants' mot…
discussed
Cited "see"
Vild v. Visconsi
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1084 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (holding that a reviewing court cannot tell whether the district court abused its discretion absent articulated reasons); Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 158 (3d Cir.1986) (holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion).
discussed
Cited "see"
D'Aquino v. Citicorp/Diner's Club, Inc.
Hays v. Sony Corp. of America, 847 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1988); see Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
York v. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEX.
(2×)
See Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148 , 1168-69 n. 14 (5th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 930 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988) (one purpose of a damages action under § 216 is to make employees whole again); Donovan v. Sovereign Sec., Ltd., 726 F.2d 55 , 58 (2d Cir.1984) (the purpose of restitution under the FLSA is “to make whole employees who have been unlawfully deprived of wages ... ”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lynda Fallon v. State of Illinois
See Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148 , 1154 n. 3 (5th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 -02, 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988); Brewster v. Barnes, 788 F.2d at 993 , 993 n. 13; Plemer v. Parsons-Gilbane, 713 F.2d 1127, 1136 (5th Cir.1983); EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F.Supp. 1264, 1328-32 (N.D.Ill.1986), aff'd on other grounds, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir.1988); Crockwell v. Blackmon-Mooring Steamatic, Inc., 627 F.Supp. 800, 806 (W.D.Tenn.1985); Grove v. Frostburg Nat’l Bank, 549 F.Supp. at 938 n. 10.
cited
Cited "see"
Dalheim v. KDFW-TV
See Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1169 (5th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988) (sex discrimination case) (and cases cited).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert N. Beeman v. James F. Fiester, James F. Mazzulia, Jack Richards, Peter Kuttner, William Birch, Richard Clarkson, and Paul Vom Brack
See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (Rule 11 picks up malicious prosecution — "filing a colorable suit for the purpose of imposing expense on the defendant rather than for the purpose of winning.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Poole v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp.
See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Training Institute, Inc. v. City of Chicago
See, e.g., Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1081 (7th Cir.1987) (“[A] disappointed bidder for a contract in Illinois lacks a property interest.”), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Development Board of State of Illinois, 616 F.2d 341, 342-43 (7th Cir.1980) (“A bidder on a government contract has no legally enforceable rights against the award of the contract to a competitor other than those the government has seen fit to confer. * * * Illinois has not conferred any right on bidders-”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Caldman v. California
See, e.g., Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1167 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 930 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. Bloch Companies
Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures Ltd., 792 F.2d 797 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissal of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction did not preclude trial court from imposing sanctions under Rule 11); see also Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (trial court retained jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions despite a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal; responsibility to answer for violation of Rule 11, as for contempt of court, accompanies the act); Greenburg v. Sala, 822 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.1987) (di…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
(2×)
See, e. g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, 809 F. 2d 483, 492 (CA8 1987), aff’d by equally divided Court, 485 U. S. 175 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Andrew W. Hansard, Cross-Appellant v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., D/B/A Pepsi-Cola Bottling Group, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
Compare Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1168-69 (5th Cir.1987) (refusing to award prejudgment interest under § 216 of the FLSA), cert. dismd., — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 -02, 99 L.Ed.2d 264 (1988) and Hill v. J.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Deere & Company v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft
See also Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1079 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (award of fees under Rule 11 is a sanction for violating a rule of court, not unlike a contempt of court sanction); In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
International Association of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio (Iam), Iam District Lodge 143 v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Fed'n of Flight Attendants, 809 F.2d 483 (8th Cir.1987) (union security and dues check-off) aff'd per curiam by an equally divided court, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 150 (1988); Manning v. American Airlines, Inc., 329 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.) (dues check-off), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 817 , 85 S.Ct. 33 , 13 L.Ed.2d 29 (1964). 53 Judge Magill ignores this entire body of law.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC.
v.
INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
v.
INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
86-1650.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 6, 1989.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Murray Gartner argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Paul E. Donnelly, Mark A. Buckstein, and Michael A. Katz.
Steven A. Fehr argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William A. Jolley, Doyle R. Pryor, and Scott A. Raisher.[*]
Marsha Berzon, William Mahoney, John Clarke, Jr., and Laurence Gold filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Crossover Flight Attendants by Mark P. Johnson; and for Some Working TWA Flight Attendants by Robert F. Gore, Rossie D. Alston, Jr., and Rex H. Reed.