green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.9 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 1 distinct case ·
" Arthur IX "
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Arthur A”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
" Arthur X "
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Gillespie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
See Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 106 (1st Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 , 122 S.Ct. 1909 , 152 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Brochu v. Ortho Pharm.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Loflin
See United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 320 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 , 122 S.Ct. 1908 , 152 L.Ed.2d 819 (2002) (noting that if timely challenged, the Government must show venue is proper by a preponderance of the evidence).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Horton
See United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 314 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 , 122 S.Ct. 1908 , 152 L.Ed.2d 819 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Armstrong v. Astrue
As the statutory language makes plain, a party cannot bring a lawsuit under the FTCA, without first exhausting his or her administrative remedies by presenting a written claim for relief to “the appropriate Federal agency.” See, Duncan v. Department of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.2002)(“Although the Federal Tort Claims Act creates several exceptions to the United States’ sovereign immunity, it requires the claimant to first ‘present[] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.’ ”), quoting Title U.S.C. § 2675(a); see also, McCoy v. United States, 264 F.3d 792, 794 (8th C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meagher v. Heggemeier
As the statutory language makes clear, a party cannot bring a lawsuit under the FTCA, without first exhausting his or her administrative remedies by presenting a written claim for relief to “the appropriate Federal agency.” See, Duncan v. Depart *1095 ment of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.2002)(“Although the Federal Tort Claims Act creates several exceptions to the United States’ sovereign immunity, it requires the claimant to first ‘present! ] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.’ ”), quoting Title U.S.C. § 2675(a); see also, McCoy v. United States, 264 F.3d 792, 79…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council
DISCUSSION First, we accept as uncontested that McQueen’s lots retain no value and therefore a total taking has occurred. 5 When there has been a total deprivation of all economically beneficial use, the threshold issue in determining whether compensation is due is whether the landholder’s rights of ownership are “confined by limitations on the use of land which ‘inhere in the title itself.’ ” Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 629 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 (quoting Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1029, 112 S.Ct. 2886 ); see also Rick’s Amusement, Inc. v. State, 351 S.C. 352 , 570 S.E.2d 155 (2001) cert. denied 5…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burton
v.
Tampa Housing Authority
v.
Tampa Housing Authority
01-1171.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (4)
BURTON
v.
TAMPA HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL.
No. 01-1171.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
1
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 271 F. 3d 1274.