Carter ex rel. Carter v. United States, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter ex rel. Carter v. United States, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “In the specific jurisdiction rubric, only those acts which relate to the formation of the contract and the subsequent breach are relevant.”
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morris v. BC OLYMPIAKOS, SFP (txsd, 2010-06-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Morris v. BC OLYMPIAKOS, SFP
S.D. Tex. · 2010 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
in the specific jurisdiction rubric, only those acts which relate to the formation of the contract and the subsequent breach are relevant.
cited Cited "see" Hartunian v. Racusin
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 , 124 S.Ct. 1090 , 157 L.Ed.2d 900 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mohammad v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carter v. United States, 333 F.3d 791, 794 (7th Cir.2003) (“Maryland ... adheres to the old-fashioned conflicts principle of ‘lex loci delicti.’ ”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 , 124 S.Ct. 1078 , 157 L.Ed.2d 899 (2004).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Boevink
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Camper, 384 F.3d at 1076 ; see also United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 , 124 S.Ct. 1087 , 157 L.Ed.2d 900 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Retail Services Inc. Freebie, Incorporated v. Freebies Publishing Eugene F. Zannon Gail Zannon, Retail Services Inc. Freebie, Incorporated v. Freebies Publishing Eugene F. Zannon Gail Zannon
4th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
The statute does not define what qualifies as an "exceptional case." Like many, if not most, of our sister circuits, we define the "exceptional case" as one in which "the defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, willful or deliberate in nature." PETA, 263 F.3d at 370 (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Horphag Research, Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 , 124 S.Ct. 1090 , 157 L.Ed.2d 900 (2004); Tamko Roofing Prods., Inc. v. Ideal Roofing Co., 294 F.3d 227, 229 (1st Cir.2002); Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carter, a Minor, by Her Parents and Next Friends, Carter et ux.
v.
United States
No. 03-726.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 2004.
540 U.S. 1111
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: S.D. Texas (1)

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.