Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Dunn
See United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 661 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 968 (2013).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re One2One Communications, LLC
See Brief of Bankruptcy Law Professors in Support of Granting the Petition for Certiorari at 5, Law Debenture Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2021 , 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013) [hereinafter “Brief of Bankruptcy Law Professors”] ("[SJophisticated parties have learned that a 'pre-packaged' reorganization plan that is designed to be consummated over a weekend may be insulated from review by an Article III court even though the plan contains terms that would be determined to be unlawful if the plan were subjected to judicial' review, and those parties are increasi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Janice Brewer
See United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1292-96 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2022 , 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013) (holding that a state law prohibiting courts from recognizing contracts involving unlawfully present aliens was preempted as “a thinly veiled attempt to regulate immigration under the guise of contract law”).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Payne
See R2 Invs., LDC v. Charter Communs., Inc. (In re Charter Communs., Inc.), 691 F.3d 476, 481 (2d Cir. 2012) cert. denied —• U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2021 , 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Tribeca Market, LLC
Corp., 209 F.3d 100 , 103 (2d Cir.2000); see also In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 691 F.3d 476, 482-83 (2d Cir.2012) (“Generally in bankruptcy appeals, the district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2021 , 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pedro Lozano v. City of Hazleton
See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108 , 120 S.Ct. 1135 , 146 L.Ed.2d 69 (2000); see also United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1296-97 (11th Cir.2012) (concluding that state law prohibiting courts from recognizing contracts with aliens lacking lawful immigration status “constitutes a thinly veiled attempt to regulate immigration under the guise of contract law,” and thus, the presumption against pre-emption does not apply, but even if it does, the law is pre-empted), cert. denied, 569 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2022 , 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013). 24 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Lee SMITH
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
No. 12–8939..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 29, 2013.
569 U.S. 968
2013 WL 1788137
2013 U.S. LEXIS 3479
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.