green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tina Ortega
See United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 560 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 37 , 196 L.Ed.2d 26 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Henthorn
See United States v. Rodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1333 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 37 , 196 L.Ed.2d 26 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Liston v. King.com, Ltd.
See In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125, 134, 149 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding plaintiffs did have Article III standing, but had failed to state a claim under the CFAA where they plausibly alleged a market for the internet history data the defendants had compiled but had not alleged any facts showing that they intended to participate in that market or that the defendants had prevented them from recovering that information’s full value), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 36 , 196 L.Ed.2d 26 (2016); Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eduardo Del Angel-Castillo
See United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 37 , 196 L.Ed.2d 26 (2016) “Second, if the sentence is procedurally sound or if the procedural error is harmless, this Court ‘considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard,’ ” Hebert, 813 F.3d at 559 (alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir. 2014)). 1 With respect to procedural reasonableness, the district court was entitled to rely on the detailed factual recitation in the PSR regarding De…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Teresa Kocher v. Laua Bearden
See, e.g., Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. 137 S. Ct. 38 , 196 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action v. United States Department of the Navy
Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to disposi-tive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 38 , 196 L.Ed.2d 26 (2016) (applying the same standard to documents attached to motions “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William GOURLEY
v.
GOOGLE, INC.
v.
GOOGLE, INC.
No. 15–1141..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2016.
85 U.S.L.W. 3138
2016 U.S. LEXIS 4597
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.