green
Positive treatment
4.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moussaoui
See Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631 , 635 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, A/K/A Shaqil, A/K/A Abu Khalid Al Sahrawi, Center for National Security Studies, Amicus Supporting
(2×)
See Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 635 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002). 43 In the previous appeal, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction because (1) the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C.A.App. 3 §§ 1-16 (West 2000 & Supp.2003)—§ 7(a) of which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from certain orders of the district court regarding the disclosure of classified information—did not apply; (2) the order of the district court was not a collateral order appealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Lo…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moussaoui
See Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631 , 635 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, A/K/A Shaqil, A/K/A Aba Khalid Al Sahrawi, Center for National Security Studies, Amicus Supporting
(2×)
See Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 635 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002). 18 In the previous appeal, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction because (1) the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C.A.App. 3 §§ 1-16 (West 2000 & Supp.2003) — § 7(a) of which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from certain orders of the district court regarding the disclosure of classified information — did not apply; (2) the order of the district court was not a collateral order appealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Industria…
cited
Cited "see"
Daigre v. Velocity Express, Inc.
See Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 694 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walther v. Sovereign Bank
(2×)
See, e.g., Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002) (stating "[w]e [] reject Snowden's argument that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable as unconscionable because without the class action vehicle, she will be unable to maintain her legal representation given the small amount of her individual damages"); Med Center Cars, Inc. v. Smith, 727 So.2d 9, 20 (Ala.1998) (stating that "to require class-wide arbitration would alter the agreements of the parties, whose arbitration agreements do not pr…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jinks
v.
Richland County, South Carolina, Et Al.
v.
Richland County, South Carolina, Et Al.
02-258.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 16, 2002.
Published
Sup. Ct. S. C. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 972.] Motion of the parties to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.