green
Positive treatment
10.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Vivi Holding Eastern Corp v. Wong
See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived.”) (citing Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997)); In re Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(C)
See Gross v. Rell, 585 F.3d 72, 95 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997)) (“Merely mentioning the relevant issue in an opening brief is not enough; ‘[i]ssues not sufficiently argued are in general deemed waived and will not be considered on appeal.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola
See Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Issues not sufficiently argued are in general deemed waived and will not be considered on appeal.”), judgment vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997). 19 equipment pursuant to an order issued after an ex parte hearing, and subsequent transport of two of its turbines to a state-owned power facility. 66 A finding of a “lack of due process in the foreign forum” may support a finding that that forum is not adequate. 67 “[W]hile the plaintiff bears the initial burden” of production in this regard, “the defendant bear…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shiyang Huang v. Equifax Inc.
See In re Asbestos Litig., 90 F.3d 963, 988 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement was satisfied, notwithstanding a settlement, in light of the “the adversarial positions which the parties occupied before settlement negotiations and the positions to which they will return if the settlement is not approved”), vacated on other grounds, Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S. Ct. 2503 (1997) (mem.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Preterm-Cleveland, Inc. v. Kasich
See Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815 (2d Cir.1996), rev’d on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997) (the sheriff’s additional workload resulting from compliance with a gun-control statute constituted injury for standing purposes). {¶27} Moreover, Preterm’s changing of policies, protocols, and procedures out of fear of sanctions, or in order to avoid liability, is sufficient for establishing standing.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Candelario
“It is a settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds by, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Villareal-Jaramillo v. Gonzales
See Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hankins v. Lyght - dissent
See Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church (In re Young), 82 F.3d 1407, 1418-19 (8th Cir.1996) (permitting a defendant to assert a RFRA defense and recover debtors’ tithes to the church because "the government action in question meaningfully curtails, albeit retroactively, a religious practice"), vacated, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2502 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997), reaff'd, 141 F.3d 854 (8th Cir.1998); see also In re Tessier, 190 B.R. 396 (Bankr.D.Mont.1995); Newman v. Midway Southern Baptist Church (In re Newman), 183 B.R. 239 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995), aff'd, 203 B.R. 468 (D.Kan.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hankins v. Lyght
See Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church (In re Young), 82 F.3d 1407, 1418-19 (8th Cir.1996) (permitting a defendant to assert a RFRA defense and recover debtors' tithes to the church because "the government action in question meaningfully curtails, albeit retroactively, a religious practice"), vacated, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2502 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997), reaff'd, 141 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 1998); see also In re Tessier, 190 B.R. 396 (Bankr.D.Mont.1995); Newman v. Midway Southern Baptist Church (In re Newman), 183 B.R. 239 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995), aff'd, 203 B.R. 468 (D.Kan.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hankins v. Lyght
See Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church (In re Young), 82 F.3d 1407, 1418-19 (8th Cir.1996) (permitting a defendant to assert a RFRA defense and recover debtors' tithes to the church because "the government action in question meaningfully curtails, albeit retroactively, a religious practice"), vacated, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2502 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997), reaff'd, 141 F.3d 854 (8th Cir.1998); see also In re Tessier, 190 B.R. 396 (Bankr.D.Mont.1995); Newman v. Midway Southern Baptist Church (In re Newman), 183 B.R. 239 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995), aff'd, 203 B.R. 468 (D.Kan.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charlie Lee Mitchell v. Warden Gerald Mason
(2×)
Accord Abrams v. Barnett, 100 F.3d 485, 489-92 (7th Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2503 (1997) (rejecting habeas petitioner's claim that denial of his lawyer's request for a private place to meet with the defendant during a noon-hour recess deprived him of his right to counsel.). 1 102 Congress has limited the circumstances in which habeas corpus relief can be granted:An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the mer…
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. Karadzic
See Flanagan v. Ahearn, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2503 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
(2×)
See generally id., at 993-1026 . [11] Shortly thereafter, this Court decided Amchem and proceeded to vacate the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remand for further consideration in light of that decision. 521 U. S. 1114 (1997).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sullivan v. Snider
See, e.g., Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 832-33 (2d Cir. 9 1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ackerson v. City of White Plains
See Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 16 F.3d 58 , 76 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Frank v. United States, 17 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds 18 by, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997). 19 20 Conclusion 21 22 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 23 court is VACATED.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ackerson v. City of White Plains
See Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58, 76 (2d Cir.2001); see also Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds by, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Siddiqui
See Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58, 76 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds by, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997). 23 1 Here, although the government by its own admission 2 “repeatedly referenced the documents introduced at trial,” 3 Government Br. 37, the jury also had ample testimony before 4 it regarding anti-American statements Siddiqui made at the 5 time of the shooting from which it could conclude that 6 Siddiqui harbored an animus towards the United States.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Siddiqui
See Tolbert v. Queens College, 242 F.3d 58, 76 (2d Cir.2001); see also Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 833 (2d Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds by, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997). 13 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker, Curtis v. McCaughtry, Gary
See Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032, 1037 (7th Cir.1987) (upholding regulation preventing gang activity even under earlier intermediate standard that re *462 quired a substantial state interest addressed through the narrowest possible means); see also Sasnett v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1018, 1023 (7th Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2502 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles v. Frank
And since suppressing gang activity to promote a secure and safe prison environment is indisputably a compelling interest, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-23 , 94 S.Ct. 2800 , 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032, 1037 (7th Cir.1987); see also Sasnett v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1018, 1023 (7th Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2502 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997), the only issue here is whether the defendants are furthering that interest through the least restrictive means.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank, Sheriff, Orange County, Vermont
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 95-2006.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1997.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Printz v. United States, ante, p. 898.