green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.5 score
“determination that good cause exists to avoid the placement preferences of 1915 should be based upon a finding of one or more of the factors described in the guidelines.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
K. R. C. v. Three Affiliated Tribes
determination that good cause exists to avoid the placement preferences of 1915 should be based upon a finding of one or more of the factors described in the guidelines.
discussed
Cited "see"
THE BRIGHTONIAN NURSING HOME v. DAINES, M.D., RICHARD F.
We affirm. -2- 399 CA 11-01861 It is well settled that “[l]egislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality” (LaValle v Hayden, 98 NY2d 155, 161 ; see Schulz v State of New York, 84 NY2d 231, 241 , rearg denied 84 NY2d 851 , cert denied 513 US 1127 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brightonian Nursing Home v. Daines
It is well settled that “[Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality” (LaValle v Hayden, 98 NY2d 155, 161 [2002]; see Schulz v State of New York, 84 NY2d 231, 241 [1994], rearg denied 84 NY2d 851 [1994], cert denied 513 US 1127 [1995]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bolls v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners
See Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765 , 768 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied 503 U.S. 984 , 112 S.Ct. 1667 , 118 L.Ed.2d 388 (1992). “[W]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Pineville Real Estate Operation Corp. v. Michael, 32 F.3d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 , 115 S.Ct. 935 , 130 L.Ed.2d 880 (1995). 3 It appears from the text of the Complaint that Plaintiffs theory of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1…
discussed
Cited "see"
Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc.
Under the investment advice prong, an individual may become a fiduciary by (1) providing individualized investment advice; (2) given pursuant to a mutual understanding; (3) on a regular basis; (4) that serves as a primary basis for investment decisions with respect to plan assets; (5) pertains to the value of the property or consists of recommendations as to the advisability of investing in certain property; and (6) is rendered for a fee. 4 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-21 (c); see Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 24 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 , 115 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Assn. v New York State Thruway Auth., 5 NY2d 420, 423 [1959]) and, “[bjowever close [its] relationship [with the State] may be, . . . it is abundantly clear that the Authority stands on its own feet, [and] transacts its business affairs through its own personnel and on its own initiative” (id. at 424-425; see Schulz v State of New York, 84 NY2d 231, 246 [1994], rearg denied 84 NY2d 851 [1994], cert denied 513 US 1127 [1995]; Bonaventure v New York State Thruway Auth., 108 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1985]), including entering into contracts separate and apart from the State (see Public Authorities La…
cited
Cited "see"
Patterson v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959
See Patterson v. State Dep’t of Agric., 880 P.2d 1038, 1046 (Alaska 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 , 115 S.Ct. 936 , 130 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki
Voter standing arises when the right to vote is eliminated or votes are diluted (see, Rudder v Pataki, supra, at 281; see also, Schulz v State of New York, 84 NY2d 231, 240-241 , cert denied 513 US 1127 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Butler
We will refer to this contribution limit as the “$300 limit.” Thus, plaintiffs attack Arkansas’ contribution limits in four places: (1) the $200 contribution limit to PACs; (2) the $500 contribution limit to independent expenditure committees; (3) the $100 contribution limit to most candidates for public office; and (4) the $300 contribution limit to candidates for statewide public office positions. *1220 General Principles “When considering whether a campaign finance law unconstitutionally infringes freedom of speech, this Court’s task is to decide whether the provision in question …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler
See, e.g., Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293, 1305 (Colo. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 (1995) (stating that jury’s award “should not be overturned unless [it] is grossly and manifestly excessive”); Mouchette v. Board of Educ., Oakland Unified Sch.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bullwinkle
v.
Alaska
v.
Alaska
No. 94-998.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 23, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Super. Ct. Alaska, 4th Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.