Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa (1994)
green
· 74 citation events
across 25 courts.
Showing the 40 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Rosemary Frobose v. American Savings and Loan Association of Danville, a State Chartered Federally Insured Sa… (1998)
Primes v. Parish National Bank, 1995 WL 115750 (E.D.La.1995) (expressly finding the burdens specified in 1993 amendment applicable to pre-amendment conduct); Haley v. Fiechter, 953 F.Supp. 1085, 1093-94 (E.D.Mo.1997) (applying burdens to pre-amendment conduct without retroactivity analysis), aff'd, 138 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir.1998); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207-08 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same).
same
green
Hill v. MR. MONEY FINANCE CO. (2007)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1994); Primes v. Parish National Bank, 1995 WL 241853 (E.D.La.1995).
green
Haley v. Fiechter (1997)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1994); Primes v. Parish National Bank, 1995 WL 241853 (E.D.La.1995).
As was expressed, in Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 1994): A scheduling order is an important tool in controlling litigation.
green
Eischeid v. Dover Construction, Inc. (2003)
Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)); Waitek v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 908 F.Supp. 672, 687 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Widmer- Baum v. Chandler-Halford, 162 F.R.D. 545, 556 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Tyler v. Iowa State Trooper Badge No. 297, 158 F.R.D. 632, 636 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 145 F.R.D. 507, 510 (N.D.Iowa 1992) (same).
same
green
Shallal v. Catholic Social Services (1997)
It should be sufficient that plaintiff actually threatened to report her employer. “[W]histleblower statute[s] [are] analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment discrimination statutes and therefore should receive treatment under the standards of proof of those analogous statutes. [Courts] agreef] that the policies underlying these similar statutes warrant parallel treatment here, and other courts faced with like issues have similarly responded.” Rouse v Farm…
green
Engstrand v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (1996)
Although direct proof is not required to create a jury question, “to avoid summary judgment, ‘the facts and circumstances relied upon must attain the dignity of substantial evidence and must not be such as merely to create a suspicion.’” Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1994).
green
Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. (2025)
July 25, 2025) (“A party’s conduct will be deemed willful where the contravened orders were clear, the party being sanctioned understood the orders, and the non-compliance was within the party's control.”); cf. Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F. Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.
“A magistrate judge's scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded [ ] without peril.”
green
West v. Jindall (2024)
Rule 16 is designed as the “essential mechanism for cases” to become “trial-ready in an efficient, just[,] and certain manner.” Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F. Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.
green
Kell v. Iberville Bank (2018)
See Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa , 866 F.Supp. 1191 , 1209 (N.D.
"[T]he plaintiff under this whistle-blower statute must establish both temporal proximity and actual or constructive knowledge of the defendant of the disclosures at the time of the employment decision to meet the 'contributory factor' test."
green
Langenbau v. Med-Trans Corp. (2016)
No. 167) (same); Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 177 F.R.D. 645, 646 (N.D.Iowa 1998) (same); Waitek v. Daikon Shield Claimants Trust, 908 F.Supp. 672, 687 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Widmer-Baum v. Chandler-Halford, 162 F.R.D. 545, 556 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Tyler v. Iowa State Trooper Badge No. 297, 158 F.R.D. 632, 636 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 145 F.R.D. 507, 510 …
same
green
Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank (2014)
Other district courts have also declined to hold individuals liable under § 1831j, see Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, IA., 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1203-04 (N.D.Iowa 1994); Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 767 F.Supp. 167, 171-72 (N.D.Ill.1991), and Plaintiff has not cited any case that held otherwise.
green
Ward v. American Pizza Co. (2012)
Although the Court has broad discretion to modify its own pretrial orders, it must be remembered that “[a]dherence to reasonable deadlines is ... critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings,” Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D.Iowa 1994), and that pretrial scheduling orders are “the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner.” Id. at 1198 .
green
Ridenour v. Collins (2010)
Although the Court has broad discretion to modify its own pretrial orders, it must be remembered that “[ajdherence to reasonable deadlines is ... critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings,” Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D.Iowa 1994), and that pretrial scheduling orders are “the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner.” Id. at 1198 .
green
Weishuhn v. LANSING CATHOLIC DIOCESE (2010)
Indeed, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that “ ‘[w]histleblower statute[s] [are] analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment discrimination statutes’ ” and “ ‘the policies underlying these similar statutes warrant parallel treatment....’” Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604, 617 ; 566 NW2d 571 (1997), quoting Rouse v Farmer’s State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F Supp 1191, 1204 (NE Iowa, 1994).
green
Hernandez v. Mario's Auto Sales, Inc. (2009)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
Co., 590 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 , 2008 WL 5142182, *10 (N.D.Iowa Dec. 5, 2008) (slip op.) (docket no. 167) (same); Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 177 F.R.D. 645, 646 (N.D.Iowa 1998) (same); Waitek v. Daikon Shield Claimants Trust, 908 F.Supp. 672, 687 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Widmer-Baum v. Chandler-Halford, 162 F.R.D. 545, 556 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Tyler v. Iowa State Trooper Badge No. 297, 158 F.R.D. 632, 636 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 86…
same
Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)); Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 177 F.R.D. 645, 646 (N.D.Iowa 1998) (same); Waitek v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 908 F.Supp. 672, 687 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Widmer-Baum v. Chandler-Halford, 162 F.R.D. 545, 556 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (same); Tyler v. Iowa State Trooper Badge No. 297, 158 F.R.D. 632, 636 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (same); Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd.…
same
green
Johnson v. District of Columbia (2007)
We agree with another court’s observation that “to avoid summary judgment, ‘the facts and circumstances relied upon must attain the dignity of substantial evidence and must not be such as merely to create a suspicion.’ ” Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1200 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (quoting Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir.1985) (citations omitted)).
quoting Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir.1985) (citations omitted)
green
Heckmann v. Detroit Chief of Police (2005)
See, e.g., Shallal, supra at 617 , quoting Rouse v Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F Supp 1191, 1204 (ND Iowa, 1994) (“ ‘ [W]histleblower statute[s] [are] analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment discrimination statutes and . . . the policies underlying these similar statutes warrant parallel treatment. . . .’ ”)• See also Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239 Mich App 270, 280 ; 608 NW2d 525 (2000) (the WPA bears substantial similarities to M…
“ ‘ [W]histleblower statute[s] [are] analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment discrimination statutes and . . . the policies underlying these similar statutes warrant parallel treatment. . . .’ ”
green
North Star Mutual Insurance v. Zurich Insurance (2003)
Accordingly, “[w]e doubt that it can be seriously questioned that ‘[ajdherence to reasonable deadlines is * * * critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings.’” Alholm v. American Steamship Co., 167 F.R.D. 75, 79 (D.Minn.1996), quoting Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D.Iowa 1994). 2.
green
Engleson v. Little Falls Area Chamber of Commerce (2002)
Scheidecker v. Arvig Enterprises, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 630, 631-32 (D.Minn.2000), quoting Archer Daniels Midland v. Aon Risk Services, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 578, 581 (D.Minn.1999). 1 Indeed “[w]e doubt that it can be seriously questioned that ‘[ajdherenee to reasonable deadlines is * * * critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings.’ ” Alholm v. American Steamship Co., 167 F.R.D. 75, 79 (D.Minn.1996), quoting Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.…
Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir.1998); see also, Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191 , (N.D.Iowa 1994) (“Additional discovery and trial preparation which results from late amendment constitutes prejudice of suffi cient magnitude to deny a motion to amend.”).
“Additional discovery and trial preparation which results from late amendment constitutes prejudice of suffi cient magnitude to deny a motion to amend.”
green
Luigino's Inc. v. Pezrow Companies (1998)
Indeed “[w]e doubt that it can be seriously questioned that ‘[ajdherenee to reasonable deadlines is *** critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings.’ ” Alholm v. American Steamship Co., supra «at 79, quoting Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, supra at 1199. 2.
green
Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (1997)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1994).
green
Kane v. State of Iowa Department of Human Services (1997)
Cf., e.g., Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Ia., 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (recognizing these factors as elements of a *1139 showing of prejudice to the opposing party when considering leave to amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15).
recognizing these factors as elements of a *1139 showing of prejudice to the opposing party when considering leave to amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15
green
Lowell v. International Business MacHines Corp. (1997)
See Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir.1994) (JNOV appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish that those responsible for termination had any knowledge of workers’ compensation claim); Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1205 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (in cases where timing alone was sufficient to establish causal connection, defendant’s knowledge was not at issue). 2.
in cases where timing alone was sufficient to establish causal connection, defendant’s knowledge was not at issue
green
Hanna v. Fleetguard, Inc. (1995)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1211 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (citing Springer I, 429 N.W.2d at 560 ).
citing Springer I, 429 N.W.2d at 560
green
Widmer-Baum v. Chandler-Halford (1995)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198-99 (N.D.Iowa 1994).
green
Widhelm v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1995)
Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1198-99 (N.D.Ia. 1994); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 608-09 (Scheduling orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of “good cause,” but orders “following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice” under Rule 16(e).); Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Center, 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir.1990) (Rule 16 gives…
green
Michael J. Haley v. Nicolas P. Retsinas (1998)
See Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F. Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.
green
Richard Fujita v. United States (2011)
Consistent with the authority vested in the trial court by rule 16, our court gives the trial court ‘broad discretion to preserve the integrity and pur- pose of the pretrial order.’” (quoting Hodges v. United States, 597 F.2d 1014, 1018 (5th Cir. 1979))); see also 3 MOORE ET AL., supra, § 16.14[1][a] (noting that the enforcement of schedul- ing orders is an “essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just and certain manner” (quoting Rouse v. Farmers…
green
Richard Fujita v. United States (2011)
Consistent with the authority vested in the trial court by rule 16, our court gives the trial court ‘broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of the pretrial order.'" *403 (quoting Hodges v. United States, 597 F.2d 1014, 1018 (5th Cir. 1979))); see also 3 Moore et al„ supra, § 16.14[l][a] (noting that the enforcement of scheduling orders is an “essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just and certain manner” (quoting Rouse v. Farmers…
green
Fasano v. Federal Reserve Bank (2006)
See, e.g., Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D.Iowa 1994); Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 767 F.Supp. 167 (N.D.Ill.1991).
green
Haley v. Retsinas (1998)
See Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1994).
green
Fruge v. Powell (2022)
See Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F. Supp. 1191, 1209 (N.D.
failing to meet § 1831j’s prima facie burden where the plaintiff “presented the court with no evidence but his suspicion that his disclosures, and not displeasure . . . with his performance, caused his discharge”
green
Nunes v. Lizza (2021)
See Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F. Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D.
holding that adherence to reasonable deadlines is critical to maintaining integrity of court proceedings
See also Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1220 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claim furnishing original jurisdiction: “[T]he state law claim that remains, although not particularly unusual or complex, does require the application of case law that has grown up around a specific state statute ....
green
Simas v. First Citizens' Federal Credit Union (1998)
See, e.g., Rouse v. Farmers State Bank Of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1204 (N.D.Iowa, 1994); Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 965 F.Supp. 1459, 1466-67 (D.Or.1997).
green
Thompto v. Coborn's Inc. (1994)
See, e.g., Rouse v. Farmers State Bank Of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D.Ia.1994); Chester v. Northwest Iowa Youth Emergency Services Center, 869 F.Supp. 700 , (N.D.Ia.1994). 19 .