United States ex rel. Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 177 L. Ed. 2d 1055 (2010). · Go Syfert
United States ex rel. Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 177 L. Ed. 2d 1055 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the lis pendens statute gives litigants a method to constructively notify anyone taking an interest in real property that a claim is being litigated against the property.”
67 citation events (67 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ron Sommers, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Alabama and Dunlavy, Ltd., Flat Stone II, Ltd., and Flat Stone, Ltd., and as Successor in Interest to Jay Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of the Jhc Trusts I and Ii v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc. (tex, 2017-06-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ron Sommers, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Alabama and Dunlavy, Ltd., Flat Stone II, Ltd., and Flat Stone, Ltd., and as Successor in Interest to Jay Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of the Jhc Trusts I and Ii v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc.
Tex. · 2017 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the lis pendens statute gives litigants a method to constructively notify anyone taking an interest in real property that a claim is being litigated against the property.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Rochelle Flynn v. Distinctive Home Care, Inc.
5th Cir. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he rehabilitation act covers discrimination claims by an independent contractor.
discussed Cited "see" Goodwin v. Madison
S.D. Ala. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, where “opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); see Logan v. Smith, 439 F. App’x 798, 800 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (same)).5 Additionally, the undersigned recognizes that while the Court is required to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings, the court does not have “license to serve as de facto counsel for a…
discussed Cited "see" Urban v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2009), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1006 , 130 S.Ct. 3468 , 177 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2010); Pew Forest Prods, v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. 59, 66 (2012). 5 There are no genuine issues of material fact as to this point.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Compliance Solutions Occupational Trainers, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit has reiterated that “[i]n ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the complaint’s undisputed factual allegations and should construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2009), cer t. denied, 561 U.S. 1006 , 130 S.Ct. 3468 , 177 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2010); Petro-Hunt, LLC v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 51, 68 (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frankel v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit has reiterated that “[i]n ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the complaint’s undisputed *335 factual allegations and should construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2009), cer t. denied, 561 U.S. 1006 , 130 S.Ct. 3468 , 177 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2010); Petro-Hunt, LLC v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 51, 68 (2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States ex rel. James Hopper and Colin Hutto
v.
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
No. 09-1065.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 21, 2010.
177 L. Ed. 2d 1055

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 588 F.3d 1318.