green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.1 score
“a court possesses inherent power to modify its consent decree.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank of the United States
Although we have never ruled directly on the availability of pendent-party jurisdiction in this circuit after Aldinger , several cases have suggested strongly that such power may not exist at all here. 10 See, e.g., Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. v. Newspaper Guild, 647 F.2d 372 , 376 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1143 , 102 S.Ct. 1003 , 71 L.Ed.2d 295 (1982) (“the pendent state law claim against [defendants who were not party to the disputed collective bargaining agreement] can be entertained only if the complaint alleges some other nonfrivo-lous independent basis for district court ju…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United States
Hoover v. Franzen, 669 F.2d 433, 438-45 (7th Cir.1982) (court must look to underlying jurisdictional grant to determine whether to exercise pendent party jurisdiction); accord Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2402 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). 21 Although we have never ruled directly on the availability of pendent-party jurisdiction in this circuit after Aldinger, several cases have suggested strongly that such power may not exist at all here. 10 See, e.g., Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. v. Newspaper Guild, 647 F.2d 372 , 376 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc.
a court possesses inherent power to modify its consent decree.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert J. SADDLER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, Respondent
See Anderson v. Department of Transp., FAA, 735 F.2d 537, 541 (Fed.Cir.) (finding that employee constructively received notice of proposed removal that was sent to the mailing address provided by the employee and received by his mother), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018 , 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984); see also Cunningham v. Department of Transp., 35 M.S.P.R. 674 (1987) (petitioner’s failure to receive show-cause order due to mother’s delay in forwarding correspondence received at last address of record did not excuse untimely filing).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. City Of Philadelphia
See Sansom Comm. by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1539 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 7 27 The relevant legal principles are not difficult nor in dispute.
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. City of Philadelphia
See Sansom Comm. by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1539 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 7 The relevant legal principles are not difficult nor in dispute.
discussed
Cited "see"
Crumpton v. Bridgeport Education Ass'n
See Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.) (holding that modification of a consent decree took the form of an injunction and was an appealable order), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crumpton v. Bridgeport Education Association
See Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.) (holding that modification of a consent decree took the form of an injunction and was an appealable order), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Les E. Templeton v. Office of Personnel Management
See Schapansky v. Department of Transp., FAA, 735 F.2d 477, 484 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018 , 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation
See Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984) (holding district court order which extended a deadline provided in a consent decree to be "in the nature of a preliminary injunction" and appealable under 28 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
See Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984) (holding district court order which extended a deadline provided in a consent decree to be "in the nature of a preliminary injunction" and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Linda J. Darnell (Rose) v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(2×)
See Schapansky v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 735 F.2d 477 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018 , 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 3 Petitioner Robert Martinkovic was on approved leave or regular days off from sometime in July, 1981, through August 9, 1981.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold J. Des Vignes v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Schapansky v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 735 F.2d 477, 483-84 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
William S. Russell, William M. Hetherington, Robert E. Henry, Daniel J. Houlihan, and Ronald E. Oswill v. Department of Transportation, Faa
See Schapansky v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 735 F.2d 477 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984); Johnson v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 735 F.2d 510 . *495 Petitioner Henry argues that he failed to report for work because of coercion due to concern that he would not be certified in retaliation for working and due to fear of danger to himself and his wife, notwithstanding that there was no picketing at his facility, no reports of violence, and no reports of threats to any of the controllers.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. City of Philadelphia
See Harris IV, 35 F.3d at 844 (asserting appellate jurisdiction under section 1292(a)(1) over appeal of orders related to consent decree which imposed affirmative duties on City); see also Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.) (order extending a compliance deadline in a consent decree by 30 days was “in the nature of a preliminary injunction” and appealable under section 1292(a)(1)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. The City Of Philadelphia
See Harris IV, 35 F.3d at 844 (asserting appellate jurisdiction under section 1292(a)(1) over appeal of orders related to consent decree which imposed affirmative duties on City); see also Sansom Committee v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1552, 1553 (3d Cir.) (order extending a compliance deadline in a consent decree by 30 days was "in the nature of a preliminary injunction" and appealable under section 1292(a)(1)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 31 The City claims that the Order of July 2, 1991 was not appealable because it provided that fines would be imposed in the fu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Earl v. Dunnington, III v. Department of Justice
See, e.g., Schapansky v. Dep’t of Transp., FAA, 735 F.2d 477, 486 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018 , 105 S.Ct. 432 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984) (Shortened seven-day notice prior to removal of air traffic controller following the August 1981 air traffic controller’s strike; "Schapansky's unexplained absence during a well-known strike established reasonable basis for the agency to believe that he was engaged in such [strike] participation and thereby automatically established a reasonable basis for its belief that he had committed the crime of striking against the government.”) 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato
See, e.g., Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1539 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Sansom Committee, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
See, e.g., Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1538 , 1540 & n. 8 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 4 Such a motion is not an appendage to clarify or reconsider the original judgment but a matter having independent significance because it relates to a development occurring after the entry of the original judgment.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pittsburgh Terminal Corporation v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Fevre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson, and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad and the Chessie System, Inc. Monroe Guttmann, Loretta Guttmann, Janet Rees, and Evelyn Bittner v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Fevre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson, and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad and the Chessie System, Inc. Appeal of Pittsburgh Terminal Corporation, Monroe Guttmann, Loretta Guttmann, Janet Rees, and Evelyn Bittner, in No. 86-3540. Appeal of Matthew E. Harlib, in No. 86-3542
See, e.g., Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1538 , 1540 & n. 8 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 431 , 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). 4 Such a motion is not an appendage to clarify or reconsider the original judgment but a matter having independent significance because it relates to a development occurring after the entry of the original judgment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Krieger
v.
New Jersey
v.
New Jersey
No. 84-145.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1984.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.