green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 ·
…we have exercised this discretion where necessary to avoid a manifest injustice or where the argument presents a question of law and there is no need for additional fact-finding.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity
Wilderness Ass’n, Inc., 124 S. Ct. 2870, 2870 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Caidor v. Onondaga County
See 8 Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498, 504 (2d Cir. 9 2006) (“‘[I]t is a well-established general rule that an 10 appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the 11 first time on appeal.’”) (quoting Greene v. United States, 12 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 1994) (alteration in original)). 13 “However, because the rule is prudential, not 14 jurisdictional, we have discretion to consider waived 15 arguments.” Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, 378 F.3d 210 , 213 16 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 17 542 U.S. 917 , 124 S. Ct. 2870 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sniado, III v. Bank Austria Ag
(2×)
See Bank Austria v. Sniado, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2870, 2871 , 159 L.Ed.2d 774 (2004). 3 We then directed the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs on the issue of whether Empagran required a different result.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sniado v. Bank Austria AG
(2×)
See Bank Austria v. Sniado, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2870, 2871 , 159 L.Ed.2d 774 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Utah Shared Access Alliance
v.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
v.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
02-1703.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 21, 2004.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
UTAH SHARED ACCESS ALLIANCE ET AL.
v.
SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE ET AL.
No. 02-1703.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 21, 2004.
1
C. A. 10th Cir. The Court reversed the judgment below in Norton v. Southern