green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Thacker v. City of Columbus
See Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 551-52 (6th Cir.2001) (explaining officers need not interview an alleged offender where a victim claims that she was abused if such an interview would, at most, produce an exculpatory denial of wrongdoing), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 95 , 154 L.Ed.2d 26 (2002); see also Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir.1999) (“[A victim’s] accusation that she had been sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, standing alone, was sufficient to establish probable cause.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thacker v. City Of Columbus
See Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 551-52 (6th Cir.2001) (explaining officers need not interview an alleged offender where a victim claims that she was abused if such an interview would, at most, produce an exculpatory denial of wrongdoing), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 95 , 154 L.Ed.2d 26 (2002); see also Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir.1999) ("[A victim's] accusation that she had been sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, standing alone, was sufficient to establish probable cause.").
discussed
Cited "see"
Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers
See Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 95 , 154 L.Ed.2d 26 (2002) (noting that as long as “a defendant seeking qualified immunity [is] willing to concede to the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and discuss only the legal issues raised by the case,” the defendant is entitled to an interlocutory appeal to show that “the undisputed facts or the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff fail[s] to establish a prima facie violation of clear constitutional law”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mullin v. Guidant Corp.
See, e.g., Cox Cable Advisory Council v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 259 Conn. 56, 70-71 , 788 A.2d 29 (addressing express preemption provision in federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 521 et seq., as it relates to section in same act specifically setting forth jurisdiction of state courts), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 819 , 123 S. Ct. 95 , 154 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sinick v. County of Summit
See also Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 819 , 123 S.Ct. 95 , 154 L.Ed.2d 26 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burrier
v.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California, Real Parties in Interest)
v.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California, Real Parties in Interest)
01-1739.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Published
BURRIER
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (CALIFORNIA ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST).
No. 01-1739.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
2
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.