green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.3 score
“in a class action suit, commonly known as a 'pattern 18 or practice' case, plaintiffs typically assert claims both of disparate treatment occasioned 19 by an employer's practices and of disparate impact produced by those practices”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
People v. Binns
However, since the police only secured and did not search defendant’s apartment until they had obtained a search warrant (see People v Arnau, 58 NY2d 27, 35 , cert denied 468 US 1217 ; but see People v Burr, 70 NY2d 354, 360 , cert denied 485 US 989 ), we reject defendant’s argument that the evidence recovered therein must be suppressed as the “fruits of an illegal search.” Rather, “where the evidence sought to be suppressed is the product of an independent source entirely free and distinct from proscribed police activity, it should be admissible and not subject to a per se rule of e…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
cacd 2025
in a class action suit, commonly known as a 'pattern 18 or practice' case, plaintiffs typically assert claims both of disparate treatment occasioned 19 by an employer's practices and of disparate impact produced by those practices
cited
Cited "see"
Franks v. National Lime Stone Company
See Smith v. Pyro Mining Co. (C.A.6, 1987), 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 , certiorari denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1293 , 99 L.Ed.2d 503 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hellinger v. Eckerd Corp.
See Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1293 , 99 L.Ed.2d 503 (1988); Brener, 671 F.2d at 144 (explaining that the statutory burden to accommodate rests with the employer); see also Beadle, 29 F.3d at 593 (recognizing that it is an employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of its employee); Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div., 589 F.2d 397 , 401 (9th Cir.1978) (stating that the burden is on the employer, not the employee, to undertake initial steps toward accommodation), cer t. denied, 44…
cited
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arlington Transit Mix, Inc.
See Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1293 , 99 L.Ed.2d 503 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
ca6 1991
See Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1293 , 99 L.Ed.2d 503 (1988).
examined
Cited "see"
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F. 2d 1477, 1485 (CA9) (en banc) (“It would subvert the purpose of Title VII to create an incentive to abandon efforts to validate objective criteria in favor of purely discretionary hiring methods”), on return to panel, 827 F. 2d 439 (1987), cert. denied, No. 87-1388, 485 U. S. 989 (1988), cert. pending, No. 87-1387; Miles v. M.N.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Topolski
The police had knowledge of exigent circumstances justifying their entry into the motel room and the arrest of defendant therein without first applying for a warrant (see People v Jackson, 203 AD2d 956, 956-957 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 827 [1994]; see also People v Burr, 124 AD2d 5, 8 [1987], affd 70 NY2d 354 [1987], cert denied 485 US 989 [1988]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. DeWitt
Accord People v. Superior Court (Shuman), 247 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 542 (Ct.App.1988) [Rehearing granted July 1, 1988, opinion on rehearing not for publication Nov. 22, 1988.] (suppression is proper where police attempt to secure warrant in reliance on their own illegal search); see also People v. Burr, 70 N.Y.2d 354 , 520 N.Y.S.2d 739 , 514 N.E.2d 1363, 1367 (N.Y.1987) (where police conduct confirmatory search to ensure that there is probable cause to obtain a warrant, evidence seized under subsequent warrant should be suppressed) (dictum), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1294 , 99 L.Ed.2d 5…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilbur Toledo, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
“A plaintiff ... makes out a prima facie case of religious discrimination by proving: (1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; (3) he or she was [not hired] for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R., 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir.1984); see also Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 , 108 S.Ct. 1293 , 99 L.Ed.2d 503 (1988); Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 797 F.2d 129,…
Burr
v.
New York
v.
New York
No. 87-6080.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 4, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (1)
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.