green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.6 score
“regulations duly promulgated by a federal agency pursuant to a congressional delegation have the same preemptive effect as a legislative enactment”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zimmerman v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
regulations duly promulgated by a federal agency pursuant to a congressional delegation have the same preemptive effect as a legislative enactment
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Caldwell v. KHOU-TV & Gannett Co.
Direct evidence of discrimination “is evidence that, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption,” Rachid v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 , 310 n. 6 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123- S.Ct. 2572, 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir.2000); see Desert Palace, Inc., 539 U.S. at 99 , 123 S.Ct. 2148 . “ ‘Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.’ ” West v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 330 F.3d 379 , 384 n. 3 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003) (citing Mooney v. Aramco Servs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zoeller v. United States
See Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328, 1341-1342 (Fed.Cir.2002), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 64 Fed.Appx. 227 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 925 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Abney v. Alameida
See Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2002) (holding that enactment of a regulatory scheme did not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the plaintiffs “retained the full range of remedies associated with any contractual property right they possessed.”), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 925 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Coyle
See United States v. Tocco, 306 F.3d 279, 284 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 123 S.Ct. 2573 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mirrow v. Barreto
See King v. United States, 301 F.3d 1270, 1275-77 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003); Pirkheim v. First Unum Life Ins., 229 F.3d 1008 , 1010-11 & n. 3 (10th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Admiral Financial Corp. v. United States
See Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2002), cert. den’d, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aguilar v. Basin Resources, Inc.
Corp., 173 F.3d 1372 , 1375 (11th Cir.1999)(same); Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996 F.2d 425, 427 (1st Cir.1993) (same); see also King v. United States, 301 F.3d 1270, 1274 (10th Cir.2002) (“It is a general rule that this court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not raised below.”), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 , 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cain v. United States
See, e.g., Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328, 1339-41 (Fed.Cir.2002), reh’g denied, reh’g en banc denied, 64 Fed.Appx. 227 , 2003 WL 21212568 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003); First Hartford, 194 F.3d 1279 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cain v. United States
See, e.g., Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328, 1339-41 (Fed.Cir.2002), reh'g denied, reh'g en banc denied, 64 Fed.Appx. 227 , 2003 WL 21212568 (Fed.Cir.2003), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003); First Hartford, 194 F.3d 1279 . 45 The Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed the Shareholders' complaint.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bevill Company, Inc. v. Sprint/United Mgmt.
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 86, 94-95 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); see, e.g., Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328, 1337-39 (Fed.Cir.2002) (holding non-parties to contract lacked standing to sue for breach and, applying Steel Co., vacating district court’s decision on merits of claim), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2572 , 156 L.Ed.2d 602 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pronsolino
v.
Nastri, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
v.
Nastri, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
02-1186.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 16, 2003.
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (1)
Pronsolino et al.
v.
Nastri, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, et al.
No. 02-1186.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 16, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 291 F. 3d 1123.