green
Positive treatment
Trending · 90 recent citers
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Moon v. USP Beaumont
Corp., 804 F. App’x at 263; accord Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac V.O.F., 241 F.3d 420 , 424 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 (2002); Williamson, 645 F.2d at 412 ; Jackson v. Tex. S. Univ., No. 4:16-CV-1123, 2017 WL 1397914 , at *2 (S.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Vasylchenko v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
See Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (Sth Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hammons Ex Rel. Hammons v. Icon Health & Fitness
(2×)
See Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 , 424 (5th Cir.2001), cert., denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002); Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., 45 F.Supp.2d 558, 565 (S.D.Tex,1999)(footnote omitted).” Cole v. Gummow, 2003 WL 22455387 , *1 (N.D.Tex.). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sniado v. Bank Austria AG
(2×)
See 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sniado, III v. Bank Austria Ag
(2×)
See 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Goldberg v. Ellett (In Re Ellett)
See Goldberg v. Ellett (In re Ellett), 254 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 968 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Ellett v. Goldberg (In Re Ellett)
See Goldberg v. Ellett (In re Ellett), 254 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 968 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Reed v. Mobile County School System
See Hipp v. Liberty National Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1216-17 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 968 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dow Chemical Co. v. Mee Industries
(2×)
See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (Fed.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1063 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002) (citing UMC Elecs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rhenalu v. Alcoa, Inc.
See Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2001). 1) Commercial Offer for Sale 16. “[T]he question of whether an invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale is a matter of Federal Circuit law, to be analyzed under the law of contracts as generally understood.” Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1047 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, —• U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1063 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bandera v. City of Quincy
The common and ordinary meaning of the word “petitioner” refers to “[a] party who presents a petition to a court.” 32 Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999) (defining “petitioner”); see United States v. Knott, 256 F.3d 20, 28 (1st Cir.2001) (task of statutory interpretation begins by examining language itself with statutory terms accorded “their ordinary meaning, ... including as reflected in dictionary definitions” such as Black’s Law Dictionary and standard English language dictionaries), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
See, e.g., Penobscot Nation v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 254 F.3d 317, 323 (1st Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 968 (2002); Felix Davis v. Vieques Air Link, 892 F.2d 1122, 1124 (1st Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. United States Air Force
(2×)
“We apply a rule of reason standard (essentially an abuse of discretion standard) in deciding whether claimed deficiencies in a [final] EIS are merely flyspecks, or are significant enough to defeat the goals of informed decisionmaking and informed public comment.” Id.; see also Custer County Action Ass’n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1035 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1063 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Donald Heavrin
(2×)
See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 2548 (1986); see also United States v. Knott, 256 F.3d 20, 29-30 (1st Cir.2001) (‘Without a finding of bad faith or improper motive, ... if the government pursues a prosecution without any foundation or basis for belief that it might prevail, such a prosecution would more appropriately be deemed ‘frivolous’ than ‘vexatious.’ Reading ‘vexatious’ to encompass such a case would render it synonymous with ‘frivolous’ .... ”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002); United States v. Sherb…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metallgesellschaft Ag and Mgts Uk Holding v. Sumitomo Corporation of America, Sumitomo Corporation, Yasuo Hamanaka
(2×)
See In re Copper Antitrust Litig., 117 F.Supp.2d 875, 883 (W.D.Wis.2000); see also Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied sub nom., Statoil ASA v. HeereMac v.o.f., 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Metallgesellschaft v. Sumitomo Corp Americ
Wis. 2000); see also Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac v.o.f., 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied sub nom., Statoil ASA v. HeereMac v.o.f., 534 U.S. 1127 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawthorne v. SEARS TERMITE & PEST CONTROL, INC.
See, e.g., Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins., 252 F.3d 1208, 1231 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 , 122 S.Ct. 1064 , 151 L.Ed.2d 968 (2002). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kruman v. Christie's International Plc
It held that "the FTAIA permits suit, insofar as is relevant here, only where the conduct complained of had `direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effects' in the United States and the effects giving rise to jurisdiction also are the basis for the alleged injury." Kruman, 129 F.Supp.2d at 625 ; see also Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 427 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002) (00-1842).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kruman v. Christie's International PLC
It held that “the FTAIA permits suit, insofar as is relevant here, only where the conduct complained of had ‘direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effects’ in the United States and the effects giving rise to jurisdiction also are the basis for the alleged injury.” Kruman, 129 F.Supp.2d at 625 ; see also Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 427 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1059 , 151 L.Ed.2d 967 (2002) (00-1842).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Deere Insurance Co.
v.
Nueva
v.
Nueva
No. 00-1491.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 2002.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.