green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
13.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
rluipa's history demonstrates that congress intended to leave intact the traditional 'substantial burden' test, as defined by the supreme court's free exercise jurisprudence
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck
the supreme court's definition of 'substantial burden' within its free exercise cases is instructive in determining what congress understood 'substantial burden' to mean in rluipa.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mountain Valley Community Bank v. Freeman (In Re Freeman)
See Cast Steel [Products, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company], 347 [348] F.3d [1298] at 1301 [(11th Cir.2003)].” Midrash Sephardi, Inc., v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1223 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1146 , 125 S.Ct. 1295 , 161 L.Ed.2d 106 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
RLI Insurance v. Waters (In Re Waters)
See Cast Steel, 348 F.3d at 1301.” Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1223 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1146 , 125 S.Ct. 1295 , 161 L.Ed.2d 106 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Sugar Hill Farm, Inc. v. Barnett (In Re Barnett)
See Cast Steel, 348 F.3d at 1301.” Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1223 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1146 , 125 S.Ct. 1295 , 161 L.Ed.2d 106 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Acosta-Colon v. WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS CO.
See Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., 360 F.3d 274 (1st Cir.2004) cert. granted in part, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1295 , 161 L.Ed.2d 104 (2005) (citing Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 , 76 S.Ct. 330 , 100 L.Ed. 267 (1956); Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 , 76 S.Ct. 337 , 100 L.Ed. 282 (1956)). 8 Plaintiffs’ are correct in asserting that the determination of their employer’s willfulness, or lack thereof, in order to apply the exception to the two year statute of limitation is a question for the trier of fact to decide.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1146 , 125 S.Ct. 1295 , 161 L.Ed.2d 106 (2005); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 930 , 120 S.Ct. 327 , 145 L.Ed.2d 255 (1999); McGuinness v. Univ. of N.M.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tum
v.
Barber Foods, Inc., Dba Barber Foods
v.
Barber Foods, Inc., Dba Barber Foods
04-66.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 2005.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)
TUM ET AL.
v.
BARBER FOODS, INC., DBA BARBER FOODS.
No. 04-66.
Supreme Court of United States.
February 22, 2005.
1
C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of National Chicken Council et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 03-1238 granted. Certiorari in No. 03-1238 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Certiorari in No. 04-66 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition and the following question: "Do employees have a right to compensation for time they must spend waiting at required safety equipment distribution stations?" Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 03-1238, 339 F. 3d 894; No. 04-66, 360 F. 3d 274.