green
Positive treatment
3.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vasko v. United States
(2×)
See Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995) (no jurisdiction over a due process violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)); see also In re United States, 463 F.3d 1328 , 1335 n.5 (Fed.Cir.) (“[B]e-cause the Due Process Clause is not money-mandating, it may not provide the basis for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.”), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 940 , 128 S.Ct. 50 , 169 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007); Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1334…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davis v. United States
(2×)
See Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995)) (no jurisdiction over a due process violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); see also In re United States, 463 F.3d 1328 , 1335 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.) (“[B]e-cause the Due Process Clause is not money-mandating, it may not provide the basis for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.”), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 940 , 128 S.Ct. 50 , 169 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007); Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 133…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix Rocha v. Rick Thaler, Director
See, e.g., Ex parte Hood, 211 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Tex.Crim.App.) (concluding that § 5(a)(1) did not authorize the CCA to consider the merits of a claim presented in a successive habeas application "because the legal bases upon which applicant relies were available at the time he filed his second application” and undertaking no discussion of the prima facie merits of the applicant’s claim), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 829 , 128 S.Ct. 48 , 169 L.Ed.2d 43 (2007), reconsideration granted on other grounds, No. WR-41,168-11, 2008 WL 4946276 (Tex.Crim.App.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Casciani v. Nesbitt
(2×)
See also Vision Church v. Village of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975 , 1001 (7th Cir.2006) (preventing noise pollution is a legitimate municipal land planning goal), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 940 , 128 S.Ct. 77 , 169 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007); Grace United Methodist Church v. City Of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 659 (10th Cir.2006) (“There can be little doubt that the City’s zoning ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose: the promotion of public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Cheyenne”); Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis, 435 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir.2006) (“…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Larson v. United States
(2×)
To prove that a statute or regulation is money mandating, plaintiff must demonstrate that the source of substantive law “relied upon can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government for the damage sustained.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216-17 , 103 S.Ct. 2961 (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 400 , 96 S.Ct. 948 ); see also In re United States, 463 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2006), ce rt. denied, 552 U.S. 940 , 128 S.Ct. 50 , 169 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County
See also Vision Church, United Methodist v. Village of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 999 (7th Cir.2006) (holding that village’s approval of church’s special use permit for new sanctuary construction with restrictions on future building and church activity limitations during the week imposed “no more than incidental burdens on the exercise of religion”), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, January 10, 2007, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 77 , 169 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ESTATE OF Ella M. PARKER
v.
SEDONA GOLF RESORT, L.C.
v.
SEDONA GOLF RESORT, L.C.
No. 06-1380.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 1, 2007.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.