How cited: Cluster 762597 · Go Syfert

Cluster 762597

green · 141 citation events across 36 courts. Showing the 24 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Quote Authority · D. Minnesota
Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 610–11 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[W]e conclude that Title IX will not support an action against McDougall in her individual capacity.”).
“[W]e conclude that Title IX will not support an action against McDougall in her individual capacity.”
Quote Authority · D. Mass.
Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 609 n.1 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Suits against school officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the school district itself.”); Smith v. Metropolitan Sch.
“Suits against school officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the school district itself.”
Quote Authority · W.D. Mo.
Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 611 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Title IX will not support an action against [a school official] in her individual capacity.”).
“Title IX will not support an action against [a school official] in her individual capacity.”
Quote Authority · W.D. Ark.
Dist, 171 F.3d 607 , 609 n.1 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Suits against school officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the school district itself.”). .
“Suits against school officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against the school district itself.”
green Salau v. Denton (2015)
Rule Authority · W.D. Mo.
(Kinman II), 171 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.1999).
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
See, e.g., Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District, 882 F.2d 720, 727 (3d Cir.1989); Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 15 F.3d 443, 451-52 (5th Cir.1994); Kinman v. Omaha Public School District 171 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir.1999).
green C.S. v. Couch (2011)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ind.
See Gabrielle M., 315 F.3d at 824, Soper, 195 F.3d at 855; Kinman, 171 F.3d at 611; cf. Davis, 526 U.S. at 654 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 (finding that a failure to investigate could constitute deliberate indifference); Murrell v. Sch.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
The partisan activity restrictions of Canon 5 are aimed at forms of obligation which are more subtle than outright corruption, but which the state still has a compelling interest in avoiding in its judiciary. 25 The Supreme Court left open the possibility that open-mindedness in judicial candidates might be a compelling state interest, so a decision premised upon such an interest has not been shown to be wrong, see Kinman, 171 F.3d at 610.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
The Supreme Court left open the possibility that open-mindedness in judicial candidates might be a compelling state interest, so a decision premised upon such an interest has not been shown to be wrong, see Kinman, 171 F.3d at 610.
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
Dist., 128 F.3d 1014 , 1019-1020 (7th Cir.1997); Kinman, 171 F.3d at 611; Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 901 ; School Admin.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 643 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 , 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (“The high standard imposed in Gebser sought to eliminate any ‘risk that the recipient would be liable in damages not for its own official decision but instead for its employees’ independent actions.” ’ (quoting Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290-91 , 118 S.Ct. 1989 )); Kinman, 171 F.3d at 609-10 (holding that “[i]t would frustrate the purposes of Title IX to permit a damages remedy aga…
holding that “[i]t would frustrate the purposes of Title IX to permit a damages remedy against a school district for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student based upon principles of re-spondeat superior or constructive notice, ie., without actual notice to a school district official”
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
A similarly distinguishable case is Kinman v. Omaha Public School District, 171 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.1999).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
In rejecting plaintiff's Title IX claim for sexual harassment, this Court stated "the prompt and thorough response by school officials to the [plaintiff's] complaint was not 'clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.'" Id. (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648 ). 50 A similarly distinguishable case is Kinman v. Omaha Public School District, 171 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 1999).
Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa · 3 citations in this opinion
The Court must examine the “adequacy of the response,” Kinman, 171 F.3d at 610, in light of the “seriousness and credibility of the complaint that puts *1083 school officials on notice.” Doe, 66 F.Supp.2d at 64 .
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Kinman, 171 F.3d at 611.
green State v. Edwards (2012)
Cited · Kan. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 609-11 (8th Cir. 1999); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 506 (6th Cir. 1996); Doe v. Taylor Independent School Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 451 (5th Cir. 1994).
Cited · M.D.N.C. · signal: see
See Kinman, 171 F.3d at 611(8th Cir.1996).
8th Cir.1996
Cited · M.D.N.C. · signal: see
See Kinman, 171 F.3d at 611(8th Cir.1996).
8th Cir.1996
Cited · D. Minnesota · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Kinman v. Omaha Public School District (Kinman II), 171 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir.1999) (finding that a student could assert a § 1983 claim premised on the 14th Amendment against an individual teacher where the teacher’s sexual conduct towards the student amounted to a deprivation of constitutional rights).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 610 (8th Cir 1999).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist., 171 F.3d 607 , 610 (8th Cir.1999).
green Bracey v. Buchanan (1999)
Cited · E.D. Va. · signal: see
See Kinman v. Omaha Public School District, 171 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.1999); Smith v. Metropolitan School District, 128 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.1997).
Cited (see also) · 8th Cir. · signal: see also
Under the law of the case doctrine, "when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case." Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983); see also Kinman v. Omaha Public School District, 171 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 1999).
Cited (see also) · 8th Cir. · signal: see also
Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983); see also Kinman v. Omaha Public School District, 171 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.1999).