Palmquist v. Shinseki, 134 S. Ct. 52 (2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Palmquist v. Shinseki, 134 S. Ct. 52 (2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Brandon Basham (ca4, 2015-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Brandon Basham
4th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fulks, 683 F.3d 512 (4th Cir.2012), cert. denied,- U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 52 , 187 L.Ed.2d 257 (2013). 3 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. William Stacey, Sr.
4th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Noel, 502 Fed.Appx. 284, 290 (4th Cir.2012) (providing standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 366 , 187 L.Ed.2d 253 (2013); United States v. Jinwright, 683 F.3d 471, 486 (4th Cir.2012) (providing that court considers “cumulative impact of the criminal conduct” to determine whether scheme is “sophisticated”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 843 , 184 L.Ed.2d 666 (2013).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sharpe
Conn. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 2d 67 (1973) (concluding that directive to provide voice exemplar was not search and recognizing that individuals do not maintain reasonable expectation of privacy in certain physical characteristics associated with identity, including facial features and fingerprints, due to constant expo- sure to public); see also, e.g., Maryland v. King, supra, 569 U.S. 477 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (suggesting that individuals do not have reasonable expectation of pri- vacy in facial or other bodily features captured in pho- tograph).12 12 For this reason, we are not persuaded by the defendant’s argum…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Doe v. Board of County Commissioners (2×)
10th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Palmquist v. Shinseki, 689 F.3d 66, 74 (1st Cir.2012) (applying the "but for” causation standard announced in Gross to claims under the Rehabilitation Act), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 52 , 187 L.Ed.2d 253 (2013); Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312, 319 (6th Cir.2012) (applying Gross’s “but for” standard to claims under the ADA); Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957, 961 (7th Cir.2010) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark S. PALMQUIST
v.
Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No. 12–789..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2013.
134 S. Ct. 52
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.