green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Briscoe v. Potter
See Gergick v. Austin, 764 F.Supp. 580 (W.D.Mo.1991) (emotional distress claim not covered by FECA); Sullivan v. U.S., 428 F.Supp. 79 (D.C.Wis.1977) (same); but see Bennett v. Barnett, 210 F.3d 272 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000) (postal employee’s emotional distress claims against postal officials were preempted by FECA; denial of claims by Secretary of Labor for lack of proof indicated that FECA coverage existed). 11 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
Granados v. State
(2×)
But cf. State v. Lara, 258 Neb. 996 , 607 N.W.2d 487, 491 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000) (holding that defendant's status as an overnight guest was sufficient for standing to contest a search even where the host had given police permission to search, but not analyzing whether consent countermanded the guest's expectation of privacy). . 114 F.3d 29, 31-32 (4th Cir.1997). . 220 Wis.2d 705 , 583 N.W.2d 668, 671-72 (Ct.App.1998). . 640 S.W.2d 40, 46 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Russell v. University of North Carolina at Charlotte
See Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 (2000) (“[I]t is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not the self-assessment of the plaintiff.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mole v. University of Massachusetts
See Sowards v. Loudon County, 203 F.3d 426, 431-434 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 (2000); Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35, 41-44 (2d Cir. 1999); Adkins v. Board of Educ. of Magoffin County, 982 F.2d 952, 955-956 (6th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherman v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.
See Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 282 (4th Cir.)(“Law does not blindly ascribe to race all personal conflicts between individuals of different races.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Turner v. Holbrook
See Bennett v. Barnett, 210 F.3d 272, 274-76 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Ginger Turner v. Jeri Holbrook
See Bennett v. Barnett, 210 F.3d 272, 274-76 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Baltimore City Police Dept.
See Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 278 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 , reh’g denied, 531 U.S. 1031 , 121 S.Ct. 613 , 148 L.Ed.2d 524 (2000), (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chika v. Planning Research Corp.
See Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 278 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 , reh’g denied, 531 U.S. 1031 , 121 S.Ct. 613 , 148 L.Ed.2d 524 (2000), citing (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Allen
The first part essentially restates the classical notice doctrine: To ensure that no person is punished for conduct not reasonably understood to be prohibited, the court must determine whether the statute in question is "sufficiently definite 'to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute'" ( People v Stuart , 100 NY2d 412, 420 [2003], quoting People v Nelson , 69 NY2d 302, 307 [1987]; see also People v Foley , 94 NY2d 668, 681 [2000], cert denied 531 US 875 [2000]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pinder v. Employment Development Department
Holdmeyer v. Dep’t of Agric, 146 Fed.Appx. 535 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 276 (4th Cir. 2000) (“[Plaintiff], however, has shown nothing more than a routine difference of opinion and personality conflict with her supervisor. [W]e refuse to transmute such ordinary workplace disagreements between individuals of different races into actionable race discrimination .... ”), cert denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000); Rivas Rosado v. Radio Shack, Inc., 312 F.3d 532, 534 (1st Cir. 2002) (concluding the same is true in sex discriminati…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
Moreover, courts must avoid, if possible, interpreting a presumptively valid statute in a way that will needlessly render it unconstitutional” (LaValle v Hayden, 98 NY2d 155, 161 [2002] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see also People v Foley, 94 NY2d 668, 677 [2000], cert denied 531 US 875 [2000] [“an enactment of the Legislature ... is presumed to be valid”]; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17, 30 [1977], cert denied 438 US 914 [1978] [“(s)tate statutes under scrutiny . . . will be stricken as unconstitutional only as a last resort and . . . courts may not substitute their j…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
King v. ZAMIARA
(2×)
Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); see also Sowards v. Loudon Cnty., 203 F.3d 426 , 431 n. 1 (6th Cir.) (“[I]n a First Amendment retaliation case, once a plaintiff shows that her constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial factor in an adverse employment decision, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant.”), cer t. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 179 , 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jadali v. Alamance Regional Medical Center
See, e.g., Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 281 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000) (discussing this concept in relation to Title VII).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spriggs v. Public Service Com'n of Maryland
Karpel, 134 F.3d at 1229 ; see also Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 280 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 , 121 S.Ct. 181 , 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000) (finding that a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case must show that the employer’s reasons for taking an employment action were dishonest or pretextual, not just dispute the merits of them).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Loudon County
v.
Sowards
v.
Sowards
No. 00-77.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.