Cluster 307980

See, e.g., Valencia, 617 F.2d at 1289 ; but cf. Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 996 (7th Cir.1973) (adopting in dicta a “threshold” test), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.

But see Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7 Cir. 1973) and McDonald v. Department of Public Welfare of the State of Florida, 430 F.2d 1268 (5 Cir. 1970). 4 7 We should not decide constitutional questions unless they are imperative to our decision.

But see Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7 Cir. 1973) and McDonald v. Depart ment of Public Welfare of the State of Florida, 430 F.2d 1268 (5 Cir. 1970). 4 We should not decide constitutional questions unless they are imperative to our decision.

See Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 452-54 (8th Cir.1985) (reversing the district court's determination that the University of Arkansas was immune to suit under Title VII and § 1983, in a case involving no state-law claim, on the ground that the district court had failed to make adequate findings as to whether or not the university was a separate entity, for Eleventh Amendment purposes, from the state); Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 989-94 (7th Cir.1973) (state had consen…

Although Burlington Northern’s authority, Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 996 (7th Cir. 1973), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), may be persuasive, we examine the test in its entirety. 8 It appears that the trial court discussed the second and third prongs of Chevron together. 9 " [Even though] New York's discriminatory treatment of out-of-state sales is made possible only because some other taxable event (transfer, delivery, or agreement to sell) tak…

Cf. Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 999 (7th Cir.1973), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom.

Any other construction would not only add to intolerable delay, but create uncertainty as to the validity of a final judgment on the merits. (emphasis in original). 16 In Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Shondell, 174 F.2d 587, 590-91 (8th Cir. 1949), the court stated that a defense of failure to state a claim made in defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was waived because it was made "after the trial and not on the trial." Similarly, in Jordan v. Weav…

In Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Shondell, 174 F.2d 587, 590-91 (8th Cir. 1949), the court stated that a defense of failure to state a claim made in defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was waived because it was made “after the trial and not on the trial.” Similarly, in Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 995 (7th Cir. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), the court considered precisely t…

United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 960 , 975 & n.l (9 Cir. 1974), aff’d, 422 U.S. 916 , 95 S.Ct. 2569 , 45 L.Ed.2d 641 (1975); Ferguson v. United States, 513 F.2d 1011, 1012 (2 Cir. 1973); Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 996 (7 Cir. 1973), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.

Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 996 (7th Cir. 1973), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.

The alternative approach would either reach the same result, inasmuch as the Supreme Court's opinion would be extremely persuasive if not dispositive as a matter of stare decisis, or would result in endless speculation if, as some writers have suggested, courts attempted to fathom whether the Supreme Court in a particular dismissal for want of a substantial federal question did so because the claim was frivolous or was foreclosed by earlier Supreme Court opinions or was simp…

Similarly, Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 986 (7th Cir. 1973), held that “a summary affirmance is a decision on the merits having precedential value.” This court determined that a sovereign immunity argument was foreclosed by Supreme Court summary affirmances.

Cf. Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 999 (7th Cir. 1973), rev'd on other grounds, sub nom.

Two months after Dillenburg was announced, the Seventh Circuit made the following apparently inconsistent statement relative to this issue: “[A] summary affirmance [by the Supreme Court] is a decision on the merits having precedential value.” Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1973).

The important issues raised by these cases now seem likely to be decided, after full argument, on the review of Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 989-995 (7 Cir.), cert, granted, 412 U.S. 937 , 93 S.Ct. 2776 , 37 L.Ed.2d 398 (1973).

Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 990 (7th Cir. 1973).

See Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1973).

See Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 990-994 (7th Cir.1973).

See 472 F.2d 985 .

See Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 421 , 93 S.Ct. 2276 , 36 L.Ed.2d 966 (1973), and Dawkins v. Craig, 483 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir. 1973), which have denied retroactive benefits, and Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. granted sub nom.

See also, Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (CA 7, 1973), reversed on other grounds; Nelson v. Schmidt, 373 F.Supp. 705 (W.D.Wis., 1973). 17 .

Compare Dillenburg v. Kramer, 9 Cir. 1972, 469 F.2d 1222, 1225 (“very little precedential significance”) with Jordan v. Weaver, 7 Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 985, 989 (“a summary affirmance is a decision on the merits having precedential value”), rev’d sub nom., Edelman v. Jordan, 1974, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 .

Compare, Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7 Cir. 1973), cert. grtd.

See King v. Smith, supra; compare Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 993-994 (7th Cir. 1973) with Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226, 238 (2d Cir. 1972).

See King v. Smith, supra; compare Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985, 993-994 (7th Cir. 1973) with Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226, 238 (2d Cir. 1972).