green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Aronson v. Internal Revenue Service
But see United States Dept. of Air Force v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 838 F.2d 229, 232 (7th Cir.) (privacy interest in home addresses is generally minuscule), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 632 , 102 L.Ed.2d 170 (1988); A.F.G.E., Local 1760 v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 786 F.2d 554 , 556-57 (2d Cir.1986) (privacy interest of average employee in home address is not compelling); Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670, 674-75 (D.C.Cir.1971) (disclosure of bare names and addresses involves only a minor invasion of privacy); Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act — 1988, 19…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Josephine Smith v. City of Santa Clara
On the governmental interest side of the balance, the Court recognized that “the probationer ‘is more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law.’ ” Id. at 120 , 122 S.Ct. 587 (quoting Griffin, 488 U.S. at 880, 107 S.Ct. 3164 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Utilimax. Com, Inc. v. PPL ENERGY PLUS, LLC
See Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Carp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988). 16 The Pinney Dock court conceded, however, that “the anti-discrimination arguments behind the Keogh doctrine lose their force in competitor lawsuits such as this.” Id. at 1457.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cost Management Services, Inc. v. Washington Natural Gas Company
See Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988). 10 However, we are not persuaded by the Sixth Circuit’s analysis.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc.
See Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Cen tral Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988); Campbell v. Upjohn, 676 F.2d. 1122 (6th Cir.1982) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a tolling of the statute when he did not read the merger agreement at the time he signed it and should have learned of the alleged scheme more than two years-before suit was actually filed); Dayco Corp. v. Goodyear Tile & Rubber Co., 523 F.2d 389 (6th Cir.1975) (denying tolling of statute when congressional hearings and press coverage should have ale…
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1992
(2×)
(No. 39) at 526-27; see United States Dep't of Health and Human Services v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1129 , 1135-36 (4th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 632 , 102 L.Ed.2d 170 (1988); 5 U.S.C.A. § 7101 (a) (imposing upon the union duties of fair representation, collective bargaining with employers, and providing disclosure information necessary to assist the implementation of these duties). 27 After refuting the contention that the Labor Statute requires a FOIA analysis divorced from the public interests of the Labor Statute, the FLRA maintained that the FOIA lacks statutory standar…
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department of the Navy
(2×)
(No. 39) at 526-27; see United States Dep’t of Health and Human Services v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1129, 1135-36 (4th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 632 , 102 L.Ed.2d 170 (1988); 5 U.S.C.A. § 7101 (a) (imposing upon the union duties of fair representation, collective bargaining with employers, and providing disclosure information necessary to assist the implementation of these duties).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lionel Reeves
See United States v. Pickett, 941 F.2d 411, 415 (6th Cir.1991). 10 We are aware of the holding in Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corporation, 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 (1988) in which this court stated that "[d]eviations [from this general rule] are permitted in 'exceptional cases or particular circumstances,' or when the rule would produce 'a plain miscarriage of justice.' " Id. at 1461 (citation omitted) (quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558 (1941)).
cited
Cited "see"
City of Mount Clemens v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Pennsylvania Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 , 1472 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
City Of Mount Clemens v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
See Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Pennsylvania Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 , 1472 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988). 23 The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within "the sound judicial discretion of the trial court." See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McReynolds, 865 F.2d 99, 101 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Michigan Ex Rel. Kelley v. C.R. Equipment Sales, Inc.
The statute of limitations is tolled “where a plaintiff did not file its action in time because of ignorance resulting from a defendant’s fraudulent concealment.” Dayco Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 523 F.2d 389, 392 (6th Cir.1975) (citations omitted); see also Pinney Dock & Transport Corp. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 , 1465-66 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,430 in Re William J. McLaren Debtor. William Longo, Sr. v. William J. McLaren
See, e.g., Pinney Dock and Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1461 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allen v. Diebold, Inc.
See also Pinney Dock and Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1471-72 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 , 109 S.Ct. 196 , 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988) (anti-trust case wherein the Circuit held that when the underlying cause of action is not one of fraud, “[m]ere silence, or one’s unwillingness to divulge one’s allegedly wrongful activities is not sufficient ... [to give rise to equitable estoppel]. [A] plaintiff should be required to prove affirmative acts of concealment, particularly in light of the strong policy in favor of statutes of limitations.”) For example, th…
Gracey
v.
Day
v.
Day
No. 88-137 (A-95).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1988.
488 U.S. 880
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.