green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.1 score
“what emerges from the post-isoto pair decisions is a presumption in favor of the contract rate subject to rebuttal based upon equitable considerations.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Beltway One Development Group, LLC (In Re Beltway One Development Group, LLC)
what emerges from the post-isoto pair decisions is a presumption in favor of the contract rate subject to rebuttal based upon equitable considerations.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Market Center East Retail Property, Inc.
what emerges from the post-ro pair decisions is a presumption in favor of the contract rate subject to rebuttal based upon equitable considerations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Beltway One Development Group, LLC
P’ship, 256 B.R. at 924 (citing Southland Corp. v. 21 Toronto-Dominion (In re Southland Corp.), 160 F.3d 1054 (5th Cir. 22 1998) (default interest rate is generally allowed unless the 23 higher rate would produce inequitable result); In re Terry Ltd. 24 P’ship, 27 F.3d 241, 243 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 25 (1994) (“What emerges from the post-Ron Pair decisions is a 26 27 9 Because we have determined Entz-White is not applicable, we need not determine whether it remains good law, which the parties 28 dispute. -15- 1 presumption in favor of the [default] contract rate subject …
discussed
Cited "see"
Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling
See Kralman v. Illinois Dep’t of Veterans’ Affairs, 23 F.3d 150 , 156 n. 7 (7th Cir.) (“replacement by someone younger, without more, will not give rise to an inference of age discrimination”), cer t. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994); Mathews v. Huntington, 499 F.Supp.2d 258 , 268 n. 8 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (“an employer’s knowledge of a significant age discrepancy between the discharged employee and his replacement ... does not, by itself, create an issue of fact as to defendants’ alleged discriminatory intent”) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Booker
See United States v. Glover, 21 F.3d 133, 138 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 360 , 130 L.Ed.2d 314 (1994) (finding that evidence known to defendant during trial was not “newly discovered” merely because testimony supporting the evidence was not previously available); United States v. Johnson, No. 92-0144, 1997 WL 63151 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 1997) (unpublished opinion) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. South Dakota
See Barone v. Rich Brothers Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610 , 613 n. 4, 614 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Catherine Papajohn
See Barone v. Rich Brothers Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610 , 613 n. 4, 614 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Catherine Papajohn
See Barone v. Rich Brothers Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610 , 613 n.4, 614 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Earles
See United States v. Glover, 21 F.3d 133, 138 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 360 , 130 L.Ed.2d 314 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
George A. Schiltz v. Burlington Northern
See Kralman v. Illinois Dep't of Veterans' Affiars, 23 F.3d 150, 155 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
George A. Schiltz v. Burlington Northern Railroad Transportation Communications Union
See Kralman v. Illinois Dep’t of Veterans’ Affairs, 23 F.3d 150, 155 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bramble v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
See. e.g., Kralman v. Illinois Dep’t of Veterans’ Affairs, 23 F.3d 150 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994) (Plaintiff need only prove ‘“that age was a determining factor in the sense that [the employment decision would not have been made] but for the employer’s motive to discriminate on the basis of age’ ”) (quoting Oxman v. WLS-TV, 846 F.2d 448, 452 (7th Cir.1988)) (additions in original).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Drago v. Aetna Plywood, Inc.
(2×)
See also Kralman v. Illinois Department of Veterans’s Affairs, 23 F.3d 150 , 154 n. 3 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 948 , 115 S.Ct. 359 , 130 L.Ed.2d 313 (1994); Jennings v. Uniroyal Plastics, Inc., 1989 WL 125601 *5 (N.D.Ind.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fletcher
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 94-5271.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1994.
513 U.S. 948
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · D. New Mexico (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.