Trudeau v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1836 (2007). · Go Syfert
Trudeau v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1836 (2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (56 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority (txnd, 2016-05-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority
N.D. Tex. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bank of Louisiana v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc., 468 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1281 , 127 S.Ct. 1826 , 167 L.Ed.2d 322 (2007); CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Auburn Thirty Six, LLC, No. 4:12-CV-1984-JAR, 2014 WL 2480610 , at *3 (E.D.Mo.
cited Cited "see" Agd, L.P. and Anabell Cardona v. Quest Principal Investments, Inc., Juan Leal, Raul A. Pena, Md, Ruben Castilla and Rsra, L.P.
Tex. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1281 , (2007); see also TEX.
discussed Cited "see" Louis C. Barnes v. Charles Michael Athens
Tex. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Murphy , 188 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (holding that movant’s objections to competency of a nonmovant’s evidence that were filed the day of the summary judgment hearing were not untimely and could be considered and ruled upon by the trial court), cert. denied , 549 U.S. 1281 (2007); Shelton , 144 S.W.3d at 118–19 (holding that trial court was within its discretion to consider appellees’ objections to summary judgment evidence even though objections were filed two days before summary judgment hearing); see also Bradford Partners II, L.P. …
discussed Cited "see" Louis C. Barnes v. Charles Michael Athens
Tex. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (holding that movant’s objections to competency of a nonmovant’s evidence that were filed the day of the summary judgment hearing were not untimely and could be considered and ruled upon by the trial court), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1281 (2007); Shelton, 144 S.W.3d at 118–19 (holding that trial court was within its discretion to consider appellees’ objections to summary judgment evidence even though objections were filed two days before summary judgment hearing); see also 3 Bradford Partners II, L.P. v…
discussed Cited "see" Davina Kelly v. Church of God in Christ, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh‘g), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1281 (2007). 5 376 (Tex. App.––Beaumont 2002, no pet); see Limestone Prods.
discussed Cited "see" James Poag v. Kathy McCormick Flories
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (noting that when a deed is merely voidable, equity will not intervene because claimant has an adequate remedy at law); see also Slaughter v. Qualls, 139 Tex. 340, 345 , 162 S.W .2d 671, 674 (1942) (stating that four-year statute of limitations applies to deeds that are voidable). 8 The question of whether a deed is void or voidable depends on its effect upon the title at the time it was executed and delivered.
discussed Cited "see" Paciwest, Inc. v. Warner Alan Properties, LLC
Tex. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Gamer v. Fidelity Bank, N.A., 244 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.); Bd. of Trustees of Fire and Police Retiree Health Fund v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., 191 S.W.3d 185, 192-93 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. denied); see Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 259-61 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1839 , 167 L.Ed.2d 323 (2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bucio v. Sutherland
S.D. Ohio · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Diligence within the meaning of the “opening clause” of § 2254(e)(2) “depends upon whether the prisoner made a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue claims in state court; it does not depend ... upon whether those efforts could have been successful.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 435 , 120 S.Ct. 1479 ; see also Satterlee v. Wolfenbarger, 374 F.Supp.2d 562 (E.D.Mich.2005), aff'd & remanded on other grounds, 453 F.3d 362 (6th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1281 , 127 S.Ct. 1832 , 167 L.Ed.2d 322 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin TRUDEAU
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 06-1012.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 19, 2007.
127 S. Ct. 1836
Published