green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
John Cinicola v. William J. Scharffenberger, Chapter 11 Trustee, Et Al.
Va. 1993) (same), aff'd without opinion, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir. 1994); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493-94 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 (1997); In re Cajun Elec.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Cinicola v. Scharffenberger
See In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 749-50 (9th Cir.) (adopting "hypothetical test”), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 924 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 248 (1999); In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 638 (E.D.Va.1993) (same), aff'd without opinion, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493-94 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); In re Cajun Elec.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. TechDyn Systems Corp. (In Re TechDyn Systems Corp.)
In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 633 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished op.); In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 750 (9th Cir.1999); In re West Electronics, Inc. 852 F.2d 79, 83 (3d Cir.1988); In re James Cable Partners, 27 F.3d 534, 537 (11th Cir.1994) (describing § 365(c) as presenting a hypothetical question); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty.
See Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he question is whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have concluded that a threat existed justifying the particular use of force.”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Sommer v. Maharaj
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 491 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Footstar, Inc.
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997) (“[Sjubsections 365(c) and (e) contemplate a case-by-case inquiry into whether the nondebtor par *790 ty.. .actually was being ‘forced to accept performance under its executory contract from someone other than the debtor party with whom it originally contracted.’ ”) (quoting Leroux, 69 F.3d at 612 ); In re Mirant Corp., 303 B.R. 319, 333 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. Partnership
See Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479 , 930 P.2d 993, 1000 , cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2512 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1997); Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 , 911 P.2d 429, 439 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 929 , 117 S.Ct. 299 , 136 L.Ed.2d 218 (1996); San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 , 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 , 41 P.3d 87, 105 (2002); Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 19 P.3d 687, 695 (Colo.2001) ("Application of the Nollan/Dolan test has been limited to the narrow set of cases where a per…
discussed
Cited "see"
Rogers MacHinery, Inc. v. Washington County
See Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz 479, 486, 930 P2d 993 , cert den 521 US 1120 (1997); Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 19 P3d 687, 698 (Colo 2002); Waters v. Montgomery County, 337 Md 15, 650 A2d 712, 724 (1994); Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 492-494 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 521 U.S. 1120 (1997) (sale of CBC stock to bioMerieux was not prohibited assignment of licenses, but assumption of licenses by reorganized debtor under new ownership as permitted under Bankruptcy Code).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Catapult Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation, AKA Storm Systems, Debtor. Stephen Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation, AKA Storm Systems
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.) (rejecting the hypothetical test in favor of the actual test), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997). 2 Although we have on two occasions declined to choose between these competing visions, see Worthington v. General Motors Corp. (In re Claremont Acquisition Corp.), 113 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir.1997); Everex, 89 F.3d at 676-77, today we hold that we are bound by the plain terms of the statute and join the Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the "hypothetical test." III. 11 We begi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue
See Home Builders Ass’n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483 , 930 P.2d 993, 997 , cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2512 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1997); Lowing v. Allstate Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lloyd D. Alkire v. Judge Jane Irving
Compare Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334 , 338 n. 1 (4th Cir.1996) (“If an official or entity is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment that official or entity is a 'person' subject to suit under § 1983.”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997), with Indep.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stephenson v. Bartlett
(2×)
Ed. 1110, 1117 (1918); see also Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 342 (4th Cir. 1996) (“Our holdings on questions of state law do not bind state courts”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rice v. National Security Council
See also Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334 , 338-339 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, Vernon v. Harter, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); and Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)(although express language of Eleventh Amendment only forbids suits by citizens of other States against a State, Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State filed by its own citizens).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richardson v. McGriff
(2×)
See also Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2512 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1997), confirming Greenidge .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Texas
v.
Mowbray
v.
Mowbray
No. 96-1735.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1997.
521 U.S. 1120
Published
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.