green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
6.7 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 3 distinct cases ·
“Due process requires that courts provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing any kind of sanctions.”
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Highgate Equities, Ltd., Debtor. Shmuel Klein, Movant-Appellant v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and David L. Tillem
due process requires that courts provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing any kind of sanctions.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Barton v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
hostility from fellow employees, having tools stolen, and resulting anxiety, without more, do not constitute ultimate employment decisions, and therefore are not the required adverse employment actions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pfeil v. Intecom Telecommunications
ultimate employment decisions include acts such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.
cited
Cited "see"
Collier v. Washington
See Alvarado, 2003 WL 22097092 , at *5 (citing Ted Lapidus, S.A. v. Vann, 112 F.3d 91, 97 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 337 , 139 L.Ed.2d 262 (1997); Satcorp Intern.
cited
Cited "see"
Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, LLC
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Casciani v. Nesbitt
See County Concrete Corp. v. Town of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159 , 169 (3d Cir.2006) (invalidating zoning legislation as irrational or arbitrary is proper “only if the governmental body could have had no legitimate reason for its decision”) (quoting Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 186 (3d Cir.) (Alito, J., concurring and dissenting), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 261 (1997)).
cited
Cited "see"
Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
ECOGEN, LLC v. Town of Italy
See County Concrete Corp. v. Town of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159 , 169 (3d Cir.2006) (judicial “invalidation of [zoning] legislation for ‘irrationality’ or ‘arbitrariness,’ is proper only if the governmental body could have had no legitimate reason for its decision”) (quoting Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 186 (3d Cir.) (Alito, J., concurring and dissenting), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 261 (1997)); Harlen Associates v. Incorporated Village of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 503 (2d Cir.2001) (to show that zoning board’s denial of plaintiffs applicati…
cited
Cited "see"
Bronco's Entertainment, Ltd. v. Charter Township Of Van Buren
See Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 181 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 261 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Bronco's Entertainment, Ltd. v. Charter Township of Van Buren
See Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 181 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 261 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re: Jerasimos Papapanayotou, Esq., Jerasimos Papapanayotou, Esq. v. Jeffrey Sapir, Esq., as Chapter 7 Trustee
See Ted Lapidus, S.A. v. Vann, 112 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 337 , 139 L.Ed.2d 262 (1997). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Accord Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Lucas v. Cheney, 821 F.Supp. 374, 376 (D.Md.1992) (holding that a letter of reprimand did not “represent an adverse employment action within the scope of Title VII”), aff'd, 991 F.2d 790 (4th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
BOBBY L. GREEN v. TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the Army
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 (1997).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Despres v. City of San Antonio
See, e.g., Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 233 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 892 , 102 S.Ct. 388 , 70 L.Ed.2d 206 (1981) (holding that Title VII prohibits only “ultimate employment decisions” which are retaliatory and not “interlocutory or mediate decisions.”); see also Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mattern
v.
Eastman Kodak Co.
v.
Eastman Kodak Co.
No. 97-126.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 1997.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.