Cases pin-citing Harper · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Harper

Cases pin-citing Harper

Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation  ·  1993  ·  66 pinpoint citations from 23 cases, 18 distinct passages.

Christine Burkhardt v. D.C. Rental Housing Commission  ·  2018-12-20  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
"[T]he availability of a predeprivation hearing constitutes a procedural safeguard sufficient by itself to satisfy the Due Process Clause."
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 189  ·  2015-11-02  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“adopting] a rule that fairly reflects the position of a majority of justices in [James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 , 111 S.Ct. 2439 , 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991) ]”
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP  ·  2011-11-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to *1123 the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect.... ”
Nunez-Reyes v. Holder  ·  2011-07-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
"When[the Supreme] Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review. . . ."
Grand Isle Shipyard Inc. v. SEACOR MARINE, LLC.  ·  2009-12-10  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  pin 509 U.S. at 86
"Congress specifically rejected national uniformity and specifically provided for the application of state remedies which demand state, not federal, statutes of limitation."
Orion Reserves Ltd. Partnership v. Salazar  ·  2009-01-23  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect ... as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule.”
Spiegla, Nancy v. Hull, Edward  ·  2007-03-30  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule ... must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review....”
Spiegla v. Hull  ·  2007-03-30  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
"When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule . . . must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review. . . ."
Neighbors v. Clark-Barker  ·  2007-03-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Swede v. Rochester Carpenters Pension Fund  ·  2006-10-20  ·  Second Circuit  ·  pin 125 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect ... as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule.”
Vaught v. Corcoran State Prison  ·  2003-02-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Frazier v. California Department of Corrections  ·  2003-01-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Tomas Garcia v. Groza  ·  2002-12-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Nell Jean Industries, Inc. v. Barnhart  ·  2002-09-10  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“ ‘[b]oth the common law and our own decisions’ have ‘recognized a general rule of retrospective effect for the constitutional decisions of this Court.’ ”
Thomas v. Hodge  ·  2002-08-19  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Cruz v. Gomez  ·  2002-07-30  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”
Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Reno  ·  2000-12-22  ·  N.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review * * *.”
Washington v. Guest Services, Inc.  ·  1998-09-17  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
"Beam/Harper"
Alphonso Samuels v. J. Mockry, G. Hewston, W. Higgins and J. Dowdle  ·  1996-02-20  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect....”
Vanessa Reed, as Parent and Next Friend of Rachel Reed, a Minor v. Mokena School District No. 159, Will County, Illinois  ·  1994-12-05  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all eases still open on direct review....”
Maria Piroglu v. T.R. Coleman, Individually and as Fire Chief, District of Columbia  ·  1994-06-17  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“Nothing in the Constitution alters the fundamental rule of retrospective operation that has governed judicial decisions ... for near a thousand years.”
Fairfax Covenant Church v. The Fairfax County School Board, Fairfax Covenant Church v. The Fairfax County School Board  ·  1994-02-28  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 74
“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases....”
Page 1 of 2   Next →