green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2010–2018 · 2 courts ·
…in the case of a private trust, only a named beneficiary, or one suing on his or her behalf, can maintain an action to enforce a trust
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Eresian v. Mantalvanos
in the case of a private trust, only a named beneficiary, or one suing on his or her behalf, can maintain an action to enforce a trust
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Scott A. Miller v. Jeremy J. Walker, D/B/A Maverick Wealth Management
our inquiry under 10(a)(4) thus focuses on whether the arbitrators had the power, based on the parties' submissions or the arbitration agreement, to reach a certain issue, not whether the arbitrators correctly decided that issue.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
T.W. Nickerson, Inc. v. Fleet National Bank
in the case of a private trust, only a named beneficiary, or one suing on his or her behalf, can maintain an action to enforce a trust
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.
See, e.g., Hoeft, 343 F.3d at 25 64 (describing manifest disregard as "an additional ground not 26 prescribed in the [FAA]"); Duferco, 333 F.3d at 389 (observing 18 1 that the doctrine's use is limited to instances "where none of 2 the provisions of the FAA apply"); DiRussa v. Dean Witter 3 Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 821 (2d Cir. 1997) (referring to the 4 doctrine as "judicially-created"), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 5 (1998); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 808 F.2d at 6 933 (same).8 But the Hall Street Court also speculated that "the 7 term 'manifest disregard' . . . merely re…
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo
See Weaver v. Wood, 425 Mass. 270, 275 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 (1998), quoting G.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hospital
See Cilecek v. Inova Health System Services, 115 F.3d 256 (4th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 , 118 S.Ct. 694 , 139 L.Ed.2d 639 (1998); Shah v. Deaconess Hospital, 355 F.3d 496 (6th Cir.2004); Wojewski v. Rapid City Regional Hosp., Inc., 450 F.3d 338, 341 (8th Cir.2006); see also, Alexander v. Rush N. Shore Med.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority
In the public employer context, others have applied the balancing test set out by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 566-68 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), in order to weigh the relative interests of the plaintiff in preserving an intimate relationship and the interests of the state in “promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. at 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 ; see, e.g., Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 , 118 S.Ct. 693 , 139 L.Ed.2d 638 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.
In the public employer context, others have applied the balancing test set out by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 566‐68 (1968), in order to weigh the relative interests of the plaintiff in preserving an intimate relationship and the interests of the state in ʺpromoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.ʺ Id. at 568 ; see, e.g., Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority
In the public employer context, others have applied the balancing test set out by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 566-68 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), in order to weigh the relative interests of the plaintiff in preserving an intimate relationship and the interests of the state in “promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. at 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 ; see, e.g., Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 , 118 S.Ct. 693 , 139 L.Ed.2d 638 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.
In the public employer context, others have applied the balancing test set out by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 566‐68 (1968), in order to weigh the relative interests of the plaintiff in preserving an intimate relationship and the interests of the state in ʺpromoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.ʺ Id. at 568 ; see, e.g., 62 Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1049 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schwartz, dba Barry K. Schwartz Partnership
v.
Sullivan
v.
Sullivan
No. 97-749.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 1998.
C. A. 9th.Cir. Certiorari denied.