green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zimmerman v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
regulations duly promulgated by a federal agency pursuant to a congressional delegation have the same preemptive effect as a legislative enactment
discussed
Cited "see"
Artt v. Exelixis US LLC
See Brown v. East Mississippi Electric Power Association, 989 F.2d 858, 861 (5th Cir. 1993). 17 “If an inference is required for the evidence to be probative as to [the defendant’s] discriminatory animus in firing [the plaintiff], the evidence is circumstantial, not direct.” Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897-98 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 (2003). - 23 - University of Texas at Austin, 860 Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gottfried Kellerman v. Eric H. Holder
See Dias v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 456, 457-58 (1st Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 (2003), Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93 , 97-102 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 910 (2003); Chambers v. Reno, 307 F.3d 284, 290-293 (4th Cir. 2002); Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 810 (2006); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035, 1036-37 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Armendariz–Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 902 (2003); Brooks v. Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1273-1274 (11th Cir. 2002) (addressed only constitutional ch…
discussed
Cited "see"
Kellermann v. Holder
See Dias v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 456, 457-58 (1st Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2574 , 156 L.Ed.2d 603 (2003), Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93, 97-102 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 910 , 124 S.Ct. 287 , 157 L.Ed.2d 199 (2003); Chambers v. Reno, 307 F.3d 284, 290-293 (4th Cir.2002); Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 810 , 127 S.Ct. 40 , 166 L.Ed.2d 18 (2006); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035, 1036-37 (7th Cir.2004) (per curiam); ArmendarizMontoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 902 , 123 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see"
Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir.2000); see Desert Palace, Inc., 539 U.S. at 99 , 123 S.Ct. 2148 . “ ‘Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.’ ” West v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 330 F.3d 379 , 384 n. 3 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003) (citing Mooney v. Aramco Servs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sanders ex rel. Rayl v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
See Robinson v. Kansas, 117 F.Supp.2d 1124, 1144 (D.Kan.2000), aff 'd, 295 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2574 , 156 L.Ed.2d 603 (2002) (a prima facie case requires a plaintiff to prove: (1) he is handicapped under the Act; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in the pro gram; (3) the program receives federal financial assistance; and (4) the program discriminated against him). ‘“Qualified handicapped person'” is defined, for services other than those with respect to employment or education, as: “a handicapped person who meets the essent…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sanders Ex Rel. Rayl v. KANSAS DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND REHABIL. SERVICES
See Robinson v. Kansas, 117 F.Supp.2d 1124, 1144 (D.Kan.2000), aff'd, 295 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2574 , 156 L.Ed.2d 603 (2002) (a prima facie case requires a plaintiff to prove: (1) he is handicapped under the Act; (2) he is "otherwise qualified" to participate in the program; *1246 (3) the program receives federal financial assistance; and (4) the program discriminated against him).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cunningham v. Advantix Digital LLC
“The issue at the pretext stage is not whether the [employer]’s reason was actually correct or fair, but whether the decisionmakers honestly believed the reason.” Harville v. City of Houston, Mississippi, 945 F.3d 870, 877 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The issue at the pretext stage is whether [the employer]’s reason, even if incorrect, was the real reason for [the employee]’s termination.”), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aguilar v. Basin Resources, Inc.
Corp., 173 F.3d 1372 , 1375 (11th Cir.1999)(same); Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996 F.2d 425, 427 (1st Cir.1993) (same); see also King v. United States, 301 F.3d 1270, 1274 (10th Cir.2002) (“It is a general rule that this court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not raised below.”), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cook
v.
Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
v.
Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
02-1317.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 16, 2003.
539 U.S. 926
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (1)
Cook
v.
Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No. 02-1317.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 16, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. Fed. Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 318 F. 3d 1334.