green
Positive treatment
6.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Vacated
Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.
(3×)
See, e.g., Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay , 868 F.3d 104 , 118 (2d Cir. 2017) (parties expressly sought invalidation of an entire ordinance, not severance); Telecommunications Regulatory Bd. of Puerto Rico v. CTIA-Wireless Ass'n , 752 F.3d 60 , 63 n.2 (1st Cir. 2014) (noting that the parties only asked for invalidation of an Act "in toto" and maintained that argument on appeal); Lozano v. City of Hazleton , 620 F.3d 170 , 182 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding a severability argument waived only because no party contested the district court's failure to sever), vaca…
cited
Vacated
Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority
See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 183 (3d Cir.2010), vacated by — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011).
examined
Vacated
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farm
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Because we conclude that the sole purpose of the Ordinance is to target illegal aliens and effect their removal from the City, we also conclude that the Ordinance is an impermissible regulation of immigration posing an obstacle to federal control of immigration policy. 35 Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 220 (3d Cir. 2010), vacated by 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011).
examined
Vacated
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 220 (3d Cir.2010), vacated by — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Southern New England School of Law, 563 U.S. 1030 (“[Gillard] has repeatedly abused this Court’s process”); Gillard v. Proven Methods Seminars, LLC, 388 F. App’x 549, 550 (7th Cir. 2010) (warning “that, if [Gillard] continues to file frivolous appeals, she will be subject to sanctions or restrictions on future litigation”); Board of Trustees of - 19 - 1-18-2348 Community College District No. 508, 393 F. App’x at 401 (“we remind [Gillard] that litigants who abuse the judicial process face sanctions and restrictions on future suits”); United States District Court for the Di…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Southern New England School of Law, 563 U.S. 1030 (“[Gillard] has repeatedly abused this Court’s process”); Gillard v. Proven Methods Seminars, LLC, 388 F. App’x 549, 550 (7th Cir. 2010) (warning “that, if [Gillard] continues to file frivolous appeals, she will be subject to sanctions or restrictions on future litigation”); Board of Trustees of - 19 - 1-18-2348 Community College District No. 508, 393 F. App’x at 401 (“we remind [Gillard] that litigants who abuse the judicial process face sanctions and restrictions on future suits”); United States District Court for the Di…
discussed
Cited "see"
Asah v. N.J. Dep't of Educ.
(2×)
As the Third Circuit has observed, "[s]ufficient injury exists to confer standing where 'the regulation is directed at [the *1006 plaintiffs] in particular; it requires them to make significant changes in their everyday business practices; [and] if they fail to observe the ... rule they are quite clearly exposed to the imposition of strong sanctions.' " Id. at 166 (citation omitted); see Lozano v. City of Hazleton , 620 F.3d 170 , 185 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding that standing existed where the plaintiffs were "direct targets of an ordinance they allege to be unconstitutional, complaining of what t…
examined
Cited "see"
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
(4×)
By way of brief summary, the INA provides criteria by which “aliens,” defined as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States,” may enter, visit, and reside in the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3); see Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 196 (3d Cir. 2010), vacated on other grounds by 563 U.S. 1030 , 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
(2×)
By way of brief summary, the INA provides criteria by which “aliens,” defined as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States,” may enter, visit, and reside in the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3); see Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 196 (3d Cir. 8 2010), vacated on other grounds by 563 U.S. 1030 , 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amended June 16, 2017 State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
(2×)
By way of brief summary, the INA provides criteria by which “aliens,” defined as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States,” may enter, visit, and reside in the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3); see Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 196 (3d Cir. 9 2010), vacated on other grounds by 563 U.S. 1030 , 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amended August 15, 2017 State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
(2×)
By way of brief summary, the INA provides criteria by which “aliens,” defined as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States,” may enter, visit, and reside in the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3); see Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 620 F.3d 170, 196 (3d Cir. 9 2010), vacated on other grounds by 563 U.S. 1030 , 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Pedro Lozano v. City of Hazleton
See City of Hazleton v. Lozano, 563 U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011).
examined
Cited "see"
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 220-21 (3d Cir.2010) (“It is difficult to conceive of a more effective method of ensuring that persons do not enter or remain in a locality than by precluding their ability to live in it.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), vacated on other grounds by — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keller v. City of Fremont
See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 219-224 (3rd Cir.2010) (“Lozano II ”) (ordinance making tenant’s legal immigration status a condition precedent to residential lease agreements and prohibiting the rental of residential units to illegal aliens was conflict-preempted by INA in general, and by 8 U.S.C. § 1324 specifically), vacated and remanded, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011) 8 ; Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1056-57 (S.D.Ca.2006) (ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal aliens likely was field- or conflict-preempted b…
discussed
Cited "see"
Central Alabama Fair Housing Center v. Magee
See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir.2010), vacated, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011); 7 United States v. Alabama, 813 F.Supp.2d 1282 (N.D.Ala.2011) (Blackburn, J.); Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 701 F.Supp.2d 835 (N.D.Tex.2010) (Boyle, J.) (“Farmers Branch II ”); Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 577 F.Supp.2d 858 (N.D.Tex.2008) (Lindsay, J.) (“Farmers Branch I”); Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F.Supp.2d 477 (M.D.Pa.2007) (Munley, J.); Garrett, 465 F.Supp.2d at 1056-57 . a.
discussed
Cited "see"
Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner
(2×)
See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 195 (3d Cir. 2010), vacated and remanded on other grounds 563 U.S. _ , 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 190-191 (2d Cir. 2008); Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000); M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 803 (10th Cir. 1998); James v. Jacobson, supra at 238 ; Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992); Doe v. Stegall, supra at 184-186 ; see also Anonymous v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 94 . 12 Relatively recently, th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cabela's Inc.
See, e.g., Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Islands) Handels AG, 720 A.2d 542, 545 (Del. 1988) (“Under the American Rule, absent express statutory language to the contrary, each party is normally obliged to pay only his or her own attorneys’ fees, whatever the outcome of the litigation.”). 82 Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 7. 83 See id. 5-6. 84 620 F.3d 170, 186 (3d Cir. 2010), vacated on other grounds by City of Hazleton, Pa. v. Lozano., 563 U.S. 1030 (2011). 85 Id. at 176. 86 Id. at 184. “are direct targets of an ordinance they allege to be unconstitutional, complaining of what tha…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States
(3×)
Pic–A–State Pa., Inc. v. Reno, 76 F.3d 1294, 1300 (3d Cir. 1996) (omission in original) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 154 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977)); see also Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 185 (3d Cir. 2010) (standing existed where plaintiffs were “direct targets of an ordinance they allege to be unconstitutional, complaining of what that ordinance would compel them to do”), vacated on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States
Pic-A-State Pa., Inc. v. Reno, 76 F.3d 1294, 1300 (3d Cir.1996) (third alteration in original) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 154 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977)); see also Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 185 (3d Cir.2010) (standing exists where plaintiffs were “direct targets of an ordinance they allege to be unconstitutional, complaining of what that ordinance would compel them to do”), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama
See, e.g., Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 194-95 (3d Cir.2010), vacated, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2958 , 180 L.Ed.2d 243 (2011) (vacating for further consideration in light of Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 563 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1968 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011)); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 , 1069 & n. 11 (9th Cir.2000); Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal, No. 11-1804 (N.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania
v.
Pedro Lozano
v.
Pedro Lozano
No. 10-772.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 6, 2011.
Cited by 21 opinions | Published
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 131 S. Ct. 1968, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (2011).
Same case below, 620 F.3d 170.