green
Positive treatment
8.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K., Parent
See Peterson v. BASF Corp., 675 N.W.2d 57, 66 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that “[t]he law of the case doctrine does not generally bar a higher court from reviewing an earlier decision of a lower court”), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 (2005); State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300 , 305 n.7 (Minn. 2008) (“We are not generally barred ‘from reviewing an earlier decision of a lower court’ ” by the law-of-the-case doctrine. (quoting BASF, 675 N.W.2d at 66 )). 41 But the Lewis-Miller framework for determining whether a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing—which appellants a…
discussed
Cited "see"
Carl West v. United States
(2×)
See European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 355 F.3d 123, 128, 139 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that there was no procedural basis for dismissal when the plaintiffs’ deadline for service had not expired), ce rt. granted, vacated on other grounds & remanded, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005); cf. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that it was error to dismiss a complaint without notice before the plaintiff served it when the plaintiff had paid filing fees).
discussed
Cited "see"
Republic of Colombia v. Diageo North America Inc.
See European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc. (hereinafter, “Amazonas”), 186 F.Supp.2d 231, 243 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (Garaufis, J.), aff'd in part and rev’d in part sub nom., European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. (hereinafter, “European Community I”), 355 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005), on reconsideration following remand, 424 F.3d 175 (2d Cir.2005) (hereinafter, “European Community II”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1045 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota
“Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right; it is the expression of an intention not to insist upon what the law affords....” Carlson v. Doran, 252 Minn. 449, 456 , 90 N.W.2d 323, 328 (1958). 3 The focus here is on what the Leiendeckers asserted, or more correctly did not assert, in previous proceedings in this court. “[I]f a party petitions for review, the party must bring all claims then ripe in that petition for review or waive further review of such claims in our court.” Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d at 304 ; see also Peterson v. BASF Corp., 675 N.W.2d 57, 66 (Minn. 2004) (exp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayden v. Pataki
See, e.g., European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 355 F.3d 123 , 136 (2d Cir.2004) ("[E]xpressions of legislative intent made years after the statute's initial enactment are entitled to limited weight under any circumstances ...."), rev'd on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005); see also United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 170 , 88 S.Ct. 1994 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1968) ("[T]he views of one Congress as to the construction of a statute adopted many years before by another Congress have very little, if any, significance.") (internal quotation marks…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayden v. Pataki
See, e.g., European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 355 F.3d 123 , 136 (2d Cir.2004) (“[Expressions of legislative intent made years after the statute’s initial enactment are entitled to limited weight under any circumstances .... ”), rev’d on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005); see also United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 170 , 88 S.Ct. 1994 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1968) (“[T]he views of one Congress as to the construction of a statute adopted many years before by another Congress have very little, if any, significance.”) (internal quo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BASF Corp.
v.
Peterson Et Al.
v.
Peterson Et Al.
04-81.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 2, 2005.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Minn. Motions of CropLife America, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, ante, p. 431.