green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Starling
See State v. Ballenger, 123 N.C.App. 179, 184 , 472 S.E.2d 572, 575 (1996), aff'd 345 N.C. 626 , 481 S.E.2d 84 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 , 118 S.Ct. 68 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Skerl v. Arrow International, Inc.
See, Smelser v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 105 F.3d 299, 303 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 , 118 S.Ct. 67 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997) (abrogated on other grounds); Wooley v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 703, 708 (S.D.Tex.1999); Baker v. Danek Medical, Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Fla.1998); Hensley v. Danek Medical, Inc., 32 F.Supp.2d 345 (W.D.N.C.1998); Smith v. Sofamor, 21 F.Supp.2d 918 (W.D.Wis.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Stanton
See In re Stanton, 682 A.2d 655 (D.C.1996) (Stanton V) (third petition), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 , 118 S.Ct. 67 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997); In re Stanton, 589 A.2d 425 (D.C.1991) (Stanton IV) (second petition), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 1098 , 112 S.Ct. 1178 , 117 L.Ed.2d 422 (1992); In re Stanton, 532 A.2d 95 (D.C.1987) (Stanton III) (first petition). 2 Now before us is a fourth petition for reinstatement, dismissed by the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) as insufficient on its face, but without prejudice to the filing of a new petition that meets the applicable requirements.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wade v. Danek Medical, Inc.
See Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1147 (5th Cir.) (holding that "federal interest” in American Pipe rule "does not trump the Texas tolling rule”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 , 118 S.Ct. 67 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997); Barela, 1996 WL 316544 , at *4 (rejecting argument that "any overriding federal interest in class actions mandates application of American Pipe in diversity cases in the absence of applicable state tolling law”); but see Adams Pub.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wade v. Danek Medical
See Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1147 (5th Cir.) (holding that "federal interest" in American Pipe rule "does not trump the Texas tolling rule"), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 (1997); Barela, 1996 WL 316544 , at *4 (rejecting argument that "any overriding federal interest in class actions mandates application of American Pipe in diversity cases in the absence of applicable state tolling law"); but see Adams Pub.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trust v. C.I.B.C. Oppenheimer Corp.
See, e.g., Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir.) (applying the Texas "discovery rule” exception that the limitations period is tolled until the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the nature of the injury), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817, 118 S.Ct. 67 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wrt Creditors Liquidation v. Cibc Oppenheimer
See, e.g., Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir.) (applying the Texas "discovery rule" exception that the limitations period is tolled until the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the nature of the injury), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 817 , 118 S.Ct. 67 , 139 L.Ed.2d 29 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kitze
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 96-1941.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
Published
Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.