How cited: N.T. \Brother\" Greene · Go Syfert

N.T. \Brother\" Greene (1992)

green · 18 citation events across 8 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
See Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 26 , 110 S.Ct. 304 , 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989); see also Walls, 761 F.2d at 316 (holding that “compliance with the sixty day notice requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit against private defendants under the ... [CWA]”); Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992) (similar).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
See Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179 , 1189 n. 15 (3d Cir.1995); Washington Trout v. McCain Foods, Inc., 45 F.3d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir.1995); Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992); National Envtl.
Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio · 2 citations in this opinion
See Bd. of Trustees of Painesville Township v. City of Painesville, 200 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Walls v. Waste, Resource Corp., 761 F.2d 311, 316 (6th Cir.1985)); Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992) (“the notice requirement is not a mere technical wrinkle of statutory drafting or formality to be waived by the federal courts”) (internal quotations omitted).
Rule Authority · E.D. Tenn.
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n, Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 175 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1077 (E.D.Tenn.2001) (citing Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992)); see also Walls v. Waste Res.
Rule Authority · E.D. Tenn.
Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992).
Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio
Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992); Walls v. Waste Resource Corp., 761 F.2d 311, 316 (6th Cir.1985); Ada-Cascade Watch Co. v. Cascade Resource Recovery, 720 F.2d 897 , 908 (6th Cir.1983).
Cited (see also) · 6th Cir. · signal: see also
States Legal Found., Inc., v. United Musical Instruments, 61 F.3d 473, 478 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir. 1992) (explaining that “the notice requirement is not a mere technical wrinkle of statutory drafting or formality to be waived by the federal courts” (citation omitted)).
explaining that “the notice requirement is not a mere technical wrinkle of statutory drafting or formality to be waived by the federal courts” (citation omitted)
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992).
Cited · N.D. Ohio · signal: see
See Greene v. Reilly, 20 ELR 21161 (W-D.Tenn.1990), aff'd on other grounds, 956 F.2d 593 (6th Cir.1992).
Cited (see also) · W.D.N.Y. · signal: see also
Under these circumstances, “the District Court must dismiss the action as barred by the terms of the statute.” Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 33 , 110 S.Ct. 304, 312 , 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989); see also Greene v. Reilly, 956 F.2d 593, 594 (6th Cir.1992) (plaintiff who reported alleged violations to various EPA officials but who did not notify EPA of plans to sue did not satisfy requirements for CWA suit against EPA Administrator); Save the Yaak Committee v. Block,…