green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Schwartz v. Chow
See Ginberg v. Tauber, 678 A.2d 548 , 551-552 (D.C.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 738 , 136 L.Ed.2d 677 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burtch v. Security Pacific Bank Oregon (In Re Mushroom Transportation Co.)
See In re TMI, 89 F.3d 1106, 1112, n. 5 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 739 , 136 L.Ed.2d 678 (1997) Second, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a preemption analysis in California Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Merriweather v. Reynolds
See also statutes changing altering statutes of limitations, such as those at issue in the case entitled In re TMI [Three-Mile Island Litigation], 89 F.3d 1106 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, Aldrich v. General Public Utilities Corp., 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 739 , 136 L.Ed.2d 678 (1997) (upholding amendments to Price-Anderson Act retroactively applying two year limitations period to plaintiffs who filed suit under then-applicable six-year statute of limitations).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
The grant or denial of a motion for leave to amend is within the Court’s discretion, but it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive ... repeated failures to cure deficiencies by [previous] amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party ... [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see also James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 737 , 136 L.Ed.2d 676 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
The grant or denial of a motion for leave to amend is within the Court’s discretion, but it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive ... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party ... [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see also James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1996) (upholding denial of motion to amend a complaint because it would…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re the Testamentary Trust of Charnock
(2×)
See also Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co., 91 F.3d 648 , 659 n.6 (4th Cir. 1996) (“Removal of trustees is appropriate when the trustees have engaged in repeated or substantial violations of their fiduciary duties.”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George B. Harris v. Michael Bowersox State of Missouri
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560 , 566 & n. 8 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 737 , 136 L.Ed.2d 676 (1997); United States v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975, 980 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Williams, 20 F.3d 125, 131-32 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 891 , 894, 115 S.Ct. 239 , 246, 130 L.Ed.2d 162, 168 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George Harris v. Michael Bowersox
See, e.g., United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560 , 566 & n.8 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 (1997); United States v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975, 980 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Williams, 20 F.3d 125, 131-32 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891 , 894 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New York v. Browner
See, e.g., Board of Trustees of the CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan v. Weinstein, 107 F.3d 139 , 145 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co., 91 F.3d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1077 , 117 S.Ct. 738 , 136 L.Ed.2d 677 (1997)); United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 19 F.3d 770, 776 (2d Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Brooks
See, e.g., United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560, 568 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that jeopardy typically attaches when a trial jury is sworn), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 737 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Brooks
See, e.g., United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560, 568 (1st Cir.1996) (explaining that jeopardy typically attaches when a trial jury is sworn), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 737 , 136 L.Ed.2d 676 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Madison Ltd., by Hecht, Assignee
v.
Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency
v.
Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency
No. 96-525.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 1997.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.