green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.3 score
“and as our rev.stat. 1979, 42 u.s.c. 1983 cases show, some remedial schemes foreclose a private cause of action to enforce even those statutes that admittedly create substantive private rights.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bonnie L. Ex Rel. Hadsock v. Bush
and as our rev.stat. 1979, 42 u.s.c. 1983 cases show, some remedial schemes foreclose a private cause of action to enforce even those statutes that admittedly create substantive private rights.
cited
Cited "see"
Greene v. United States
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 652 , 148 L.Ed.2d 556 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Buckley v. United States
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 652 , 148 L.Ed.2d 556 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Buckley v. United States
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 652 , 148 L.Ed.2d 556 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 532 U.S. 275 , 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1519-20 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Bowers v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASS'N, ACT
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 532 U.S. 275 , 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1519-20 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Brindisi v. Regano
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (no adverse impact claim under Title VI, a sister statute of Title IX).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of Georgia
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1516 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (holding that there is no private right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964, because "Title VI itself directly reaches only instances of intentional discrimination”) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
RCJ Medical Services, Inc. v. Bonta´
Council, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 845 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2783 ]; accord, Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) 531 U.S. 1049 [ 532 U.S. 275, 283 [ 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1518 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 ].) As the United States Supreme Court further held in Chevron U. S. A., “The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding. [Citations.]” (Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res.
cited
Cited "see"
White v. Denver Seminary
See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1879, 1882 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
James v. City of Dallas
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). 22 .
cited
Cited "see"
Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Conoco Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp.
See Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1517 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (stating “this Court is bound by holdings, not language’’); see also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1849 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring) (declining to follow the Court’s prior misleading dicta); Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 1550 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (discounting an "isolated sentence”). 17 .
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services
See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1879, 1889 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Townsend v. Quasim
See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1879 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Currie v. Group Insurance Commission
See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1879, 1888 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001) (“to effectuate its sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against disabled individuals in major areas of public life, among them employment (Title I of the Act), public services (Title II) and public accommodations (Title III)”; id. at 1897-98 (Scalia, J., dissenting)) (“the ADA has three separate titles: Title I covers employment discrimination, Title II covers discrimination by government entities, and Title III covers discrimination by places of accommodation”) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
EISENBERG v. NATIONAL DANCE INSTITUTE
(See D.E. 6-1 at 42–44.) Although NDI raises a cogent point about whether the claim was filed within the statute of limitations, given the insufficient pleading, this Court declines to reach that argument. assistance that has a primary objective of providing employment”); see also White v. Williams, 179 F. Supp. 2d 405 , (D.N.J. 2002) (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 (2001)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
AMERICAN ASS'N OF PEOPLE WITH DISABIL. v. Smith
Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 859 F.Supp. 1489 (S.D.Fla.1994); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 652 , 148 L.Ed.2d 556 (2000). [16] Since, as noted above, "facilities" are defined to include "equipment," the regulation's reference to construction of facilities (e.g., "facilities constructed or altered after" a certain date) apparently is intended to apply to alterations of equipment, such as voting machines. [17] Section 35.150(a) provides: (a) General.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Smith
Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 859 F.Supp. 1489 (S.D.Fla.1994); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 652 , 148 L.Ed.2d 556 (2000). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson Walker, and Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Municipality
See Nabke v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 520 F.Supp. 5 (W.D.Mich.1981); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (holding that federal courts may not create private rights of action in statutes that do not otherwise provide for private suit).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson Walker, and Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Municipality
See Nabke v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 520 F.Supp. 5 (W.D.Mich.1981); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 531 U.S. 1049 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (holding that federal courts may not create private rights of action in statutes that do not otherwise provide for private suit).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Caldwell
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-6152.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000).