green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
15.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2000 ·
…he court has indicated that flast applies only to cases in which a federal taxpayer challenges a congressional appropriation made pursuant to article i, section 8 that allegedly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
James Tarsney v. Michael O'Keefe
(3×)
he court has indicated that flast applies only to cases in -11- which a federal taxpayer challenges a congressional appropriation made pursuant to article i, section 8 that allegedly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tarsney v. O'keefe
he court has indicated that flast applies only to cases in which a federal taxpayer challenges a congressional appropriation made pursuant to article i, section 8 that allegedly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
White v. Shalala
we prefer the interpretive/legislative terminology because it avoids any potential confusion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
White v. Shalala
we prefer the interpretive/legislative terminology because it avoids any potential confusion.
discussed
Cited "see"
Colorado Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. City of Salida
(2×)
See Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1397-98 (10th Cir.1992) (adopting the three-part test in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 , 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5380, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8755 Chief Probation Officers of California, and the County of Santa Barbara, California v. Donna Shalala, Mary Jo Bane, and Lavinia Limon, in Their Official Capacities, Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families
(2×)
See Metropolitan School Dist. of Wayne Tp. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 , 492 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chief Probation Officers v. Shalala
(2×)
See Metropolitan School Dist. of Wayne Tp. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 , 492 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
examined
Cited "see"
Virginia Department of Education v. Riley
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Metropolitan School Dist. of Wayne Township v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1992) (discussing the history of the interpretive rule), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 (1993).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education v. Riley
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Metropolitan School Dist. of Wayne Township v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 (7th Cir.1992) (discussing the history of the interpretive rule), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard E. Melvin v. United States
See Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 230-31 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993) (citation omitted) (“ ‘Because the right to possess firearms is the civil right with which section 921(a)(20) is concerned,’ a conviction will continue to count if state law prohibits the [defendant] from possessing a firearm even if other civil rights have been restored.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose J. Padilla v. United States
See Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227 , 228 n.2 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1360 (1993). 8 On appeal, Padilla asserts that the government breached the express terms of the plea agreement.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George Olbert Hood v. United States
On the contrary, as we recently reiterated in Collins , the “fact that the order of discharge itself did not contain an express limitation on the right to possess firearms is not controlling.” Collins, 321 F.3d at 697 (quoting Wind, 986 F.2d at 1252 (Magill, J. & Hansen, J. concurring)); see also Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 230-31 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that defendant’s prior Nebraska felony conviction was properly counted for sentence enhancement purposes even if defendant’s certificate of discharge did not include the express limitation under § 921(a)(20)), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norman Ray Woodall
See also Dockter, 58 F.3d at 1289-91 , where we assumed that other civil rights had been restored under North Dakota law but upheld the § 924(e) enhancement because the right to possess firearms had not, and Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 231 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 950 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993), construing Nebraska law.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Suzanne M. Bartley v. United States
(2×)
See Flast, 392 U.S. at 105 , 88 S.Ct. at 1955 (discussing Frothingham); see also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1399 (10th Cir.1992) (“ ‘After Flast , the Court consistently has adhered to the narrow exception [Flast] created to the general rule against taxpayer standing.’ ”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360, 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) (quoting Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618 , 108 S.Ct. 2562, 2579 , 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988), and collecting cases); Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Zielke, 845 F.2d 1463, 1469-70 (7th Cir.1988) (recognizing th…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Committee to Save the Rio Hondo v. Lucero
(3×)
An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); see also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1396 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Committee To Save The Rio Hondo v. Lucero
(2×)
An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 , 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); see also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1396 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Colo. Manufactured Housing v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS
(2×)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 , 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); see also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1397-98 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) (adopting this three-part test).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Colorado Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners of Pueblo
(2×)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 , 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); see also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1397-98 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) (adopting this three-part test).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth Of Virginia Department Of Education v. Richard W. Riley
(2×)
See Decision of the Secretary, supra, at 6 (noting that an expulsion for conduct unrelated to disability is "the circumstance left unaddressed by Honig "); ante at 1344 ("[U]pholding the Secretary's decision in the case at bar is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Honig v. Doe." (emphasis added)); see also Metropolitan School District v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485, 493 (7th Cir.1992) ("Honig did not reach this issue."), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth of VA v. Riley
See Decision of the Secre- tary, supra, at 6 (noting that an expulsion for conduct unrelated to dis- ability is "the circumstance left unaddressed by Honig"); ante at 12 ("[U]pholding the Secretary's decision in the case at bar is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Honig v. Doe." (emphasis added)); see also Metropolitan School District v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485, 493 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Honig did not reach this issue."), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education v. Riley
(2×)
See Decision of the Secretary, supra, at 6 (noting that an expulsion for conduct unrelated to disability is "the circumstance left unaddressed by Honig "); ante at 1344 ("[Ujpholding the Secretary's decision in the case at bar is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Honig v. Doe." (emphasis added)); see also Metropolitan School District v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 , 493 (7th Cir.1992) ("Honig did not reach this issue.”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 , 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Education v. New York State Teachers Retirement System
Compare Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1402-03 (10th Cir.1992) (requirements for federal and state taxpayer standing the same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) and Taub v. Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912, 918 (6th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870 , 109 S.Ct. 179 , 102 L.Ed.2d 148 (1988) with Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1180 (9th Cir.1984) (state taxpayer standing found where each plaintiff alleged “status as a taxpayer” and identified “amounts of money appropriated” for challenged actions).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board Of Education Of The Mt. Sinai Union Free School District v. New York State Teachers Retirement System
Compare Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1402-03 (10th Cir.1992) (requirements for federal and state taxpayer standing the same), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) and Taub v. Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912, 918 (6th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870 , 109 S.Ct. 179 , 102 L.Ed.2d 148 (1988) with Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1180 (9th Cir.1984) (state taxpayer standing found where each plaintiff alleged "status as a taxpayer" and identified "amounts of money appropriated" for challenged actions).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hanson v. Espy
In Doe, the court's statement referred to the review of informal "interpretive documents," not "legislative rules." Legislative rules are regulations that an agency has issued pursuant to a congressional delegation of authority and has promulgated in accordance with "the normal procedures associated with force-of-law rule making," namely, "notice-and-comment rule making pursuant to [ 5 U.S.C. § 553 of the APA]." Doe, 830 F.2d at 1446 ; see also Metropolitan School Dist. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 , 490 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993) The Doe c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hanson v. Espy
In Doe , the court's statement referred to the review of informal "interpretive documents,” not "legislative rules.” Legislative rules are regulations that an agency has issued pursuant to a congressional delegation of authority and has promulgated in accordance with "the normal procedures associated with force-of-law rule making,” namely, "notice-and-comment rule making pursuant to [ 5 U.S.C. § 553 of the APA].” Doe, 830 F.2d at 1446 ; see also Metropolitan School Dist. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 , 490 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Deroise J. Washington
See, e.g., Davis v. United States, 972 F.2d 227, 230-31 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1360 (1993); United States v. Ellis, 949 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Traxel, 914 F.2d 119, 124 (8th Cir. 1991). 5 Accordingly, we affirm. 1 The Honorable Richard G.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Van Dyke v. Regents of the University of California
See also Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1400-1402 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1360 , 122 L.Ed.2d 739 (1993) (discussing the three-part Ninth Circuit test but rejecting it in favor of a stricter requirement of personal monetary loss).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc.
v.
Romer, Governor of Colorado
v.
Romer, Governor of Colorado
No. 92-640.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1993.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice White would grant certiorari.