green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji (In Re Oparaji)
See In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Connolly
See United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119, 1126-1127 (9th Cir. 1999), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1117 (2000) (installation of GPS device on undercarriage of vehicle in driveway not search where driveway was not within curtilage); United States v. Williams, 650 F. Supp. 2d 633, 667-669 (W.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Trillium Industries, Inc.
See In re Coastal Plains Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000); see also Horsley-Layman v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 221 S.W.3d 802 , 807 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied) (applying federal bankruptcy law to judicial estoppel to “promote the goal of uniformity and predictability in bankruptcy proceedings” and to “give the proper effect to the judgment of the bankruptcy court”); Dallas Sales Co. v. Carlisle Silver Co., 134 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. denied); Cleaver v. Cleaver, 1…
discussed
Cited "see"
Synergetics, Inc. v. Hurst
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) ("If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56."); see generally Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms., Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir.1999) (discussing sum…
examined
Cited "see"
Rumore v. Wamstad (In Re Waddell)
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2002). 4 In the case of Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In re Coastal Plains, Inc.), 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated the following regarding the doctrine of judicial estoppel: Judicial estoppel is “a common law doctrine by which a party who has assumed one position in his pleadings may be estopped from assuming an inconsistent position”.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mayes v. Cherokee Nation (In Re Mayes)
See NVR Homes, Inc. v. Clerks of the Circuit Courts (In re NVR, LP), 189 F.3d 442, 452 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 815 (2000) (a thorough analysis of whether a judicial proceeding constitutes a suit must consider both the procedural posture and substantive nature of the proceeding); National Cattle Congress, 247 B.R. at 269 (for sovereign immunity purposes, suits are defined by looking to the essential nature and effect of the proceeding); Pitts v. Ohio Dep’t of Taxation (In re Pitts), 241 B.R. 862, 869 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1999) (applying a six part …
discussed
Cited "see"
At Massey Coal Co., Inc. v. Massanari
See Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000). “[F]ive Justices rejected the conclusion that an unconstitutional taking was effected, reasoning that the constitutionality of the financial burden on the company imposed by the Coal Act must be considered as a question of substantive due process rather than as a takings question because no identifiable property interest was infringed by the legislation.” Id.See also Unity Real Estate Co. v. Hudson, 178 F.3d 649, 659 (3d Cir.1999) (“we are bound …
cited
Cited "see"
El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng
See 528 U. S. 1117 (1998). 9 An “accident” under Article 17 is “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.” Safes, 470 U. S., at 405 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Holland v. Consol Energy Inc.
Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 , 504–514 (1998); see also Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597 , 600–602 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Country Lake Enterprises, Inc.
See, e.g., Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 605-06 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000) (discussing general rule that appellate court will not consider issue raised for the first time on appeal, and noting that whether district court may consider issue in subsequent proceedings is generally within discretion of court).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramer v. NJ Transit Bus Operations, Inc.
Co., 690 F. 2d 595, 599 (6th Cir.1982); see also In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F. 3d 197, 206-07 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 814 (2000); Astor Chauffeured Limousine Co. v. Runnfeldt Inv.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harel
v.
Lawrence
v.
Lawrence
No. 99-741.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2000.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.