green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.6 score
“we reject hale's contention that defendants' allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because hale failed to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in his complaint.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Saylor v. Jeffreys
we reject hale's contention that defendants' allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because hale failed to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in his complaint.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Herian
See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840, 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (Table).
cited
Cited "see"
Richard B. Bayson v. Southeast Community College, et al.
Minn. 2020); see Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
See Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 , 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“We reject [Plaintiff’s] contention that defendants’ allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because [Plaintiff] failed 3 to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in the complaint.”); Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (concluding that retaliation claims cannot establish grounds for a TRO because they are entirely different from the claims raised in the complaint).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
See Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 , 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“We reject [Plaintiff’s] contention that defendants’ allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting 2 injunctive relief, because [Plaintiff] failed to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in the complaint.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
See Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 , 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“We reject [Plaintiff's] contention that defendants’ allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because [Plaintiff] failed to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in the complaint.”); Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (concluding that retaliation claims cannot establish grounds for a TRO because they are are entirely different from the claims raised in the complaint).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
See Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 , 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“We reject [Plaintiff’s] contention that defendants’ allegedly threatening and retaliatory behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because [Plaintiff] failed to establish a connection between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in the complaint.”); Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (concluding that claims of retaliation for bringing a § 1983 lawsuit cannot form the basis for injunctive relief because the claims are entirely different from the claims raised in the complaint).
discussed
Cited "see"
Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe
(2×)
See Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 899 F.Supp. 431 (D.S.D.1995), appeal dismissed, 89 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.1996). [¶ 7.] Calvello then sued the Tribe in circuit court seeking recompense based on quantum meruit, fraudulent inducement to arbitrate, and fraudulent inducement to contract.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yick v. Bank of America, N.A.
See, e.g., Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Hale failed to establish a threat of irreparable harm because the injuries he alleged as the basis for his claim for relief— wrongfully withheld wages, statutorily inadequate wages, and termination of his work assignment—were compensable through his section 1983 claim for money damages.”); Johnson v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 3078635 , at *3 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hedderel v. Merrick
See, e.g., Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 899 F.Supp. 431, 435 (D.S.D.1995), appeal dismissed, 89 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.1996); Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance v. California Reinsurance Management Corp., 819 F.Supp. 797, 802 (E.D.Wis.1993); TM Marketing, Inc. v. Art & Antiques Associates, L.P., 803 F.Supp. 994, 997-98 (D.N.J.1992); New Hope Baptist Church v. Design Building Interiors, Inc., 789 F.Supp. 19 (D.D.C.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vernon L. Curd
v.
City of Searcy, Arkansas Searcy Board of Public Utilities
v.
City of Searcy, Arkansas Searcy Board of Public Utilities
95-4257.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jun 21, 1996.
Unpublished
Citer courts: D. Nebraska (1)
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Vernon L. CURD, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SEARCY, ARKANSAS; Searcy Board of Public Utilities,
Appellees.
No. 95-4257.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 1996.
Filed: June 21, 1996.
Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
Vernon L. Curd appeals from the final judgment of the District Court[1] dismissing his civil rights and pendent state law claims. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the judgment of the District Court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
1
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas