green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burris v. Thorpe
ur conclusion that no officer-defendant had deprived the plaintiff of any constitutional right a fortiori defeats the claim against the county as well.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherrill Johnson, Individually and as next friend and mother of Victoria Johnson, a minor v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
See Scott v. Clay County, 205 F.3d. 867 (6th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 (2000) (after stopping vehicle, officer acted reasonably in firing his handgun at car 10 when it was driven directly at him; the bullet hit innocent passenger; but summary judgment was appropriate).
cited
Cited "see"
Parker v. Henderson County, Tennessee
See Scott v. Clay County, Tenn., 205 F.3d 867, 876 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Akiyama v. United States Judo Inc.
See Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 207 F.3d 803, 813 (5th Cir.) (assuming arguen-do that disparate impact claims are cognizable under Title), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 177 , 148 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000); Olzman v. Lake Hills Swim Club, Inc., 495 F.2d 1333, 1340-41 (2nd Cir.1974) (if facially neutral definition of “guest” disproportionately affects minority group, burden of justifying the definition shifts to defendant); Robinson v. Power Pizza, Inc., 993 F.Supp. 1462, 1464-65 (M.D.Fla.1998) (likelihood of success on disparate impact claim shown where facially neutral policy has an advers…
cited
Cited "see"
Wayne v. Shadowen
See Scott v. Clay County, Tenn., 205 F.3d 867, 879-80 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
King v. State
Id” Daniels v. State, 172 Md.App. 75, 87 , 913 A.2d 617, 624 (2006), cert. denied, 398 Md. 314 , 920 A.2d 1059 (2007); see also Reynolds v. State, 130 Md.App. 304, 311 , 746 A.2d 422, 425 (1999) (“[W]e consider, upon our review of the denial of the motion to suppress, only that version of the testimony in the light most favorable to the State and accepted by the motions judge.”), cert. denied, 358 Md. 383 , 749 A.2d 173 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 178 , 148 L.Ed.2d 122 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CABANISS EX REL. CABANISS v. City of Riverside
See e.g., Scott v. Clay County, 205 F.3d 867, 879 (6th Cir.) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 , 106 S.Ct. 1571 , 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Escobedo
v.
Conoco, Inc.
v.
Conoco, Inc.
No. 00-55.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.