Estelle v. Wasko, 502 U.S. 801 (1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Estelle v. Wasko, 502 U.S. 801 (1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Latta, Roger v. LaPorte County Sheri (ca7, 2007-02-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Latta, Roger v. LaPorte County Sheri
7th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 919 F.2d 1230 (7th Cir.1990) (Buckley I), remanded on other grounds, 502 U.S. 801 , 112 S.Ct. 40 , 116 L.Ed.2d 19 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Bruner
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 919 F.2d 1230, 1237 (7th Cir.1990) (vacated on other grounds by 502 U.S. 801 , 112 S.Ct. 40 , 116 L.Ed.2d 19 ); cf. Smith v. Benedict, 279 F.2d 211 (7th Cir.1960) (the term “claim” refers to a cause of action); Atkins, Kroll (Guam), Ltd. v. Cabrera, 277 F.2d 922, 924 (9th Cir.1960) (the term “claim” refers to a cause of action).
discussed Cited "see" Maddox v. River & Sea Marine, Inc. (2×)
Alaska · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Andrulonis v. United States, 924 F.2d 1210, 1222 (2d Cir.1991), vacated, 502 U.S. 801 , 112 S.Ct. 39 , 116 L.Ed.2d 18 (1991), result reinstated, 952 F.2d 652 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1204 , 112 S.Ct. 2992 , 120 L.Ed.2d 869 (1992) (inquiry into obviousness of danger depends not upon actual knowledge of user but upon whether the danger was sufficiently obvious that it would be unreasonable to impose a duty to warn upon the supplier).
discussed Cited "see" Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (2×)
SCOTUS · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 919 *282 F. 2d 1230, 1244 (CA7 1990), vacated and remanded, 502 U. S. 801 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McCue v. City of New York
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
In addition, the discretionary function exception serves to protect “the principles embodied in the separation of powers doctrine by keeping the judiciary from deciding questions consigned to the executive and legislative branches of the government.” Caban v. United, States, 671 F.2d 1230, 1233 (2d Cir.1982); see also Andrulonis v. United States, 924 F.2d 1210, 1218 (2d Cir.1991), vacated on other grounds by New York State Dep’t of Health v. Andrulonis, 502 U.S. 801 , 112 S.Ct. 39 , 116 L.Ed.2d 18 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
In addition, the discretionary function exception serves to protect "the principles embodied in the separation of powers doctrine by keeping the judiciary from deciding questions consigned to the executive and legislative branches of the government." Caban v. United States, 671 F.2d 1230, 1233 (2d Cir.1982); see also Andrulonis v. United States, 924 F.2d 1210, 1218 (2d Cir.1991), vacated on other grounds by New York State Dep't of Health v. Andrulonis, 502 U.S. 801 , 112 S.Ct. 39 , 116 L.Ed.2d 18 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Estelle, Warden
v.
Wasko
No. 91-64.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1991.
502 U.S. 801
Published

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.