Cluster 351976
green
· 171 citation events
across 28 courts.
Showing the 40 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse Inc. (2024)
R&R at *13-14 (distinguishing Rule, 568 F.2d 558, 563-64 (8th Cir. 1977)).
green
Burkhart v. H.J. Heinz Co. (Slip Opinion) (2014)
Assn. of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977), as modified on denial of rehearing (1978). {¶ 29} Although federal caselaw construing an analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Evidence may be instructive in interpreting our rules, it is not binding on this court.
green
Anderson v. Dallas County Texas (2008)
Co., 259 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001); Rule v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge., Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568-69 (8th Cir.1977).
Co., 915 F.2d 770, 774 (1st Cir. 1990); Monarch Beverage Co., 823 F.2d at 1192 ; Fogarty v. Piper, 767 F.2d 513, 515 (8th Cir. 1985); Lyles, 759 F.2d at 944-45 ; In re Incident Aboard the D/B Ocean King, 758 F.2d 1063, 1072 (5th Cir. 1985); Salinas v. Roadway Express, Inc., 735 F.2d 1574, 1578 (5th Cir. 1984); Rule v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir. 1977); United Virginia Bank, 555 F.2d at 406 ; Sellers v. Wol…
green
Charles D. Scanio v. United States (1994)
The majority rejects appellant's claim that Rule 6 (a) applies to this habeas corpus petition, on the ground that the "in custody" requirement of 28 U.S.C.
green
McFeely v. United States (1988)
Although the language of Rule 804(b)(1) has not always been strictly construed by the courts, see generally, 4 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 804(b)(1)[04] (1985); Rule v. International Assoc. of Bridge Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977); Dykes v. Raymark Industries, 801 F.2d 810 , 815-17 (6th Cir.1986); it is clear that this Court would be acting appropriately if it refused to consider the deposition submitted by the plaintiffs.
green
United States v. Western Electric Co. (1988)
Thus, a price disparity in this setting does not necessarily mean a price discrimination. 3 To so conclude would require factual findings, which as we have seen are entirely lacking in this case (again, through no fault of Judge Greene). 4 Under these circumstances, “the appropriate course of action is to vacate the judgment and remand the case.” Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Etc., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Tagatz v. Marquette University (1988)
Co., 741 F.2d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2320 , 85 L.Ed.2d 839 (1985); Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir.1977); Accord Nash v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 763 F.2d 1393, 1397 (11th Cir.1985); Walker v. Jefferson County Home, 726 F.2d 1554, 1557 (11th Cir.1984).
green
Palmer v. Shultz (1987)
Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. at 341-342 , 97 S.Ct. at 1858 ; Donnell v. General Motors Corp., 576 F.2d 1292 , 1295 n. 3 (8th Cir.1978); Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977). 17.
green
Craig v. Alabama State University (1986)
Co., 741 F.2d 1241,1245 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2320 , 85 L.Ed.2d 839 (1985); Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir. 1977).
green
Craig v. Alabama State University (1986)
Co., 741 F.2d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2320 , 85 L.Ed.2d 839 (1985); Rule v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Tauber v. District of Columbia (1986)
See Lyles v. United States, 245 U.S.App.D.C. 215 , 759 F.2d 941 (1985); Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 555 F.2d 426, 434-36 (5th Cir.1977); Rule v. International Association of Bridge Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club (1986)
Lasso v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Co., 741 F.2d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2320 , 85 L.Ed.2d 839 (1985); Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir.1977) (individual claims in the nature of a pattern and practice suit).
green
Kolb v. County of Suffolk (1985)
These statements are of course admissible under Rule 32 (a)(1).
green
Fogarty v. Piper (1985)
Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Blue Sky L. Rep. P 72,266 Kristie A. Fogarty v. Richard D. Piper and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, I… (1985)
Rule v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Carlos A. LASSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF the WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee (1984)
In Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ir-onworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir. 1978), a Title VII class suit was brought but was treated at trial as one involving individual claims.
green
Grover Hill Grain Co. v. Baughman-Oster, Inc., Defendant-Third Party Champion Screw Company, Third Party (1984)
Morelock; Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Bankr. L. Rep. P 69,507, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1205 John Ed Clay and Wife, Marie Clay v. Johns-Manville Sale… (1984)
See also Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 396, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977); Weinstein & Berger, Evidence Sec. 804(b)(1) at 804-67 (1969) ("[C]ases decided since the enactment of Rule 804 (b)(1) for the most part indicate a reluctance to interpret 'predecessor in interest' in its old, narrow, and substantive law sense, of privity").
green
Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
See also Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 396, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977); Weinstein & Berger, Evidence § 804(b)(1) [04] at 804-67 (1969) (“[C]ases decided since the enactment of Rule 804 (b)(1) for the most part indicate a reluctance to interpret ‘predecessor in interest’ in its old, narrow, and substantive law sense, of privity”).
See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791-92 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 , 450 & n. *, 94 S.Ct. 1185 , 1186 & n. *, 39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974) (per curiam); Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977); General Electric Credit Corp. v. Robbins, 414 F.2d 208, 211 (8th Cir.1969).
green
Deluryea v. Winthrop Laboratories (1983)
This court has observed that: 38 As a general rule, depositions taken in a prior action are admissible in a subsequent action if there is substantial identity of issues and parties in the two actions. 39 Rule v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
DeLuryea v. Winthrop Laboratories (1983)
Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1977).
green
In Re Federal Skywalk Cases. In Re Melanie Hanson Johnson and Gerard Stanley Johnson, in Re Federal Skywalk C… (1982)
E.g., Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, 568 F.2d 558, 563 (8th Cir. 1977).
green
In Re Related Asbestos Cases (1982)
At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions: (1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradict…
green
Lynda LeBoeuf COSTA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. MARKEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants (1982)
The Brown court’s comprehensive catalogue of authorities pursuing this approach is as follows: “Friend v. Leidinger, 588 F.2d 61, 66 (4th Cir. 1978), aff'g 446 F.Supp. 361 (E.D.Va.1977); Rule v. Ironworkers Local 396, 568 F.2d 558, 565, n.10 (8th Cir. 1977); Smith v. Troyan, 520 F.2d 492, 497-98 (6th Cir. 1975); Lee v. City of Richmond, 456 F.Supp. 756, 771 (E.D.
green
Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982)
Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice §52.06[2] (1982) (“Where the trial court fails to make findings, or to find on a material issue, and an appeal is taken, the appellate court will normally vacate the judgment and remand the action for appropriate findings to be made”); Rule v. International Assn. of Bridge Workers, 568 F. 2d 558, 568 (CA8 1978); Chicano Police Officer’s Assn. v. Stover, 552 F. 2d 918 , 921 (CA10 1977); O’Neal v. Gresham, 519 F. 2d 803 , 805 (CA4 1975); Burch v…
green
Shapiro v. Midwest Rubber Reclaiming Company (1980)
Ass'n of Bridge, Etc., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 563 (8th Cir. 1977).
green
Shapiro v. Midwest Rubber Reclaiming Co. (1980)
Ass’n of Bridge, Etc., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 563 (8th Cir. 1977).
green
Brown v. New Haven Civil Service Board (1979)
Rule v. Ironworkers Local 396, 568 F.2d 558, 566 (8th Cir. 1977); cf. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 , 575 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2943 , 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978).
green
Dickerson v. United States Steel Corp. (1978)
Rule v. Int’l Association of Bridge Workers, 568 F.2d at 565, n.10 .
green
Powertrain, Inc. v. Ma (2015)
See Rule v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, et al., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977).
See Rule v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, et al., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 569 (8th Cir.1977).
See Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir. 1977).
green
Ramirez v. City of Omaha (1981)
See Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558 , 565 n. 10 (8th Cir. 1977); 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4 (C) (1979). 15 *13 A significant disagreement in this case involves whether the plaintiffs should be entitled to show disparate impact upon minorities in general, or whether the statistical inquiry should be limited to just Mexican-Americans.
green
24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 352, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,392 Walee Abdul Hameed Lonnie Vanderson George Coe Willi… (1980)
See Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir. 1977) (hereafter Rule II ).
hereafter Rule II
green
Hameed v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 396 (1980)
See Rule v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union No. 396, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir. 1977) (hereafter Rule II).
hereafter Rule II
green
Rule v. INTERN. ASS'N OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC. (1979)
See Rule II, supra, 568 F.2d at 568 n.15.
green
Virgo v. Local Union 580 (1985)
See South v. Rowe, 759 F.2d 610 , 612 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1985) (current inmate may intervene in action commenced by former inmate to improve prison conditions and enforce consent decree since he is intended third party beneficiary of decree entered therein); Jones v. Local 520, Int’l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 603 F.2d 664, 666 (7th Cir.1979) (consent decree in Government civil rights action against union enforceable by union members), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1017 , 100 S.Ct. 66…
affirming ruling on enforcement of consent decree
green
Missouri Pacific Joint Protective Board, Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio … (1984)
See also Rule v. International Ass’n of Bridge Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 568 (8th Cir.1978); McCord, Condron & McDonald, Inc. v. Carpenters Local Union No. 1822, 464 F.2d 1036, 1036 (5th Cir.1972) (case remanded where district court failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law); Fed.R.