green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.7 score
“here is no 'positive repugnancy' ... the two removal statutes simply overlap.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cook v. Cook
here is no 'positive repugnancy' ... the two removal statutes simply overlap.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Police for Automatic Retirement Ass'n v. Difava
See Gately v. Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994) (referring to the 1986 amendment); Gately v. Massachusetts, No. 92-13018-MA, 1998 WL 518179 , at *7 n. 5 (D.Mass.
cited
Cited "see"
State Police for Automatic Retirement Ass'n v. Difava
See Gately v. Com. of Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
STATE POLICE FOR AUTOMATIC RETIREMENT v. Difava
See Gately v. Com. of Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
STATE POLICE FOR AUTOMATIC RETIREMENT v. Difava
See Gately v. Com. of Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
State Police for Automatic Retirement Ass'n v. Difava
See Gately v. Com. of Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
City of Joliet v. Bank One, Chicago, N.A. (In Re Green)
See Daleske v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., 17 F.3d 321, 323-24 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion
See, e.g., Evans v. City o f Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 479 (7th Cir. 1993) (explaining importance of nar row constructions of decrees that bind the exercise of governmental discretion), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1082 (1994); Alliance to End Repression v. City o f Chicago, 742 F.2d at 1013 (explaining that “ a court will hesitate to assume that by signing a consent decree the government knowingly bartered away important public interests merely to avoid the expense of a trial” ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Strahan v. Linnon
And the First Circuit has noted that when the interim relief sought by the plaintiff “ ‘is essentially the final relief sought, the likelihood of success should be strong.’” In re Pye, 38 F.3d 58,63 (1st Cir.1994) (citation omitted); see also Gately v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2 F.3d 1221, 1224 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
EEOC v. ASTRA U.S.A., Inc.
See, e.g., Gately v. Commonwealth of Mass., 2 F.3d 1221, 1232 (1st Cir.1993) (stating that "a federal court cannot dispense with the irreparable harm requirement in affording injunctive relief"), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1082 , 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Simmons
v.
Pryor
v.
Pryor
No. 93-1465.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1994.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.