green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Campanella v. County of Monroe
See DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292, 302 (2d Cir.2003) (“Generally, due process requires that a state afford persons ‘some kind of hearing’ prior to depriving them of a liberty or property interest”) (quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 299 , 101 S.Ct. 2352 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981)), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 , 124 S.Ct. 2018 , 158 L.Ed.2d 492 (2004); Bullock v. Gerould, 338 F.Supp.2d 446, 452 (W.D.N.Y.2004) (plaintiffs due process claim failed where he went through arbitration proceeding, in which he was “given a full opportunity to present …
discussed
Cited "see"
Corus Construction Venture, LLC v. Laketown Wharf Marketing Corp. (In re Laketown Wharf Marketing Corp.)
(2×)
See Artistic Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir.2003) (summary judgment granted where “the district court had all the information necessary to rule on the legal issues, and [non-moving party] raised no genuine question of material fact”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 , 124 S.Ct. 2017 , 158 L.Ed.2d 491 (2004); AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. (In re Delta Res., Inc.), 162 B.R. 562, 566 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1993) (summary judgment granted for plaintiff in dispute over priority of security interest where all facts were undisputed and only question b…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Laketown Wharf Marketing Corp.
(2×)
See Artistic Entm't, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir.2003) (summary judgment granted where "the district court had all the information necessary to rule on the legal issues, and [non-moving party] raised no genuine question of material fact"), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 , 124 S.Ct. 2017 , 158 L.Ed.2d 491 (2004); AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. (In re Delta Res., Inc.), 162 B.R. 562, 566 (Bankr.
cited
Cited "see"
Linear Technology Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.
See Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 344 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 , 124 S.Ct. 2019 , 158 L.Ed.2d 492 (2004). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. New York State Education Department
See, e.g., Abramson v. Pataki, 278 F.3d 93, 101-02 (2d Cir.2002). 23 Third, a plaintiff must satisfy the “plus” component — deprivation of a “ ‘tangible interest’ or property right.” DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292, 302 (2d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 , 124 S.Ct. 2018 , 158 L.Ed.2d 492 (2004). 24 Although “it is not entirely clear what the ‘plus’ [requirement] is,” Neu v. Corcoran, 869 F.2d at 667 , “the deleterious effects which flow directly from a sullied reputation would normally ... be insufficient.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Novartis Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
The doctrine of prosecution history estop-pel "precludes a patent owner in an infringement suit from obtaining a construction of a claim that would in effect resurrect subject matter surrendered during the course of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office.” 5A-18 Chisum, supra, § 18.05; see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558, 564-65 (Fed.Cir.2000) (en banc) ("The logic of prosecution history estoppel is that the patentee, during prosecution, has created a record that fairly notifies the public that the patentee has surrendered the right to claim pa…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metrologic Instruments, Inc. v. Symbol Technologies, Inc.
The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel "precludes a patent owner in an infringement suit from obtaining a construction of a claim that would in effect resurrect subject matter surrendered during the course of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office.” 5A-18 Chisum, supra, § 18.05; see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558, 564-65 (Fed.Cir.2000) (en banc) ("The logic of prosecution history estoppel is that the patentee, during prosecution, has created a record that fairly notifies the public that the patentee has surrendered the right to claim par…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. v. Meyers
Although postdeprivation remedies can provide constitutionally sufficient process in circumstances where the deprivation was caused by a state agent’s conduct that was “random” and “unauthorized,” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 130 , 110 S.Ct. 975 ; see, e.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 , 101 S.Ct. 1908 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986), on the rationale that the state cannot reasonably anticipate such conduct, s…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. v. Meyers
Although postdeprivation remedies can provide constitutionally sufficient process in circumstances where the deprivation was caused by a state agent's conduct that was "random" and "unauthorized," Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 130 , 110 S.Ct. 975 ; see, e.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 , 101 S.Ct. 1908 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 , 106 S.Ct. 662 , 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986), on the rationale that the state cannot reasonably anticipate such conduct, see, e.g., …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samuel King v. David Bobby, Warden
See also Sullivan v. Pitcher, 82 Fed.Appx. 162 (6th Cir. Nov.18, 2003) (per curiam) (affirming the rejection of a habeas petition where petitioner entered guilty plea pro se after the judge issued an ultimatum of working with his sixth appointed counsel or proceeding pro se), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 991 , 124 S.Ct. 2017 , 158 L.Ed.2d 497 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Colosimo
v.
Minnesota
v.
Minnesota
03-1066.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 19, 2004.
Published
COLOSIMO
v.
MINNESOTA.
No. 03-1066.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 19, 2004.
1
Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 669 N. W. 2d 1.