Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Krause v. Mohave, County of
Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 , 108 S.Ct. 26 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hampton v. Borough of Tinton Falls Police Department
Ct. 26, 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Delores Armour v. The County of Beaver, Pennsylvania, Bea Schulte, Commissioner, in Her Individual Capacity
(4×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Armour v. Beaver
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied , 483 U.S. 1052 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Sebro Packaging Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Wolckenhauer
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Meadox Medicals, Inc. v. Life Systems, Inc.
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Global Landfill Agreement Group v. 280 Development Corp.
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Vanderhoof v. Life Extension Institute
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 899 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987) (citing Furnco Constr.
examined
Cited "see"
ALI, Inc. v. Generali
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3rd Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. CDMG Realty Co.
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Dugan v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Bass v. City of Wilson
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 899 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Jackson v. American Chemical Society
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 895 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); see also United Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 , 714 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 1481 n. 3, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (“As in any lawsuit, the plaintiff [in a discrimination case] may prove his case by direct or circumstantial evidence”).
examined
Cited "see"
Palmiero v. Weston Controls
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.
(3×)
See Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 808 F.2d 1490, 1498 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Jack Colgan v. Fisher Scientific Company
(6×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Rosario-Olmedo v. Community School Board for District 17
See Id. at 1113-14 and cases cited therein.
examined
Cited "see"
McGuire v. United States Postal Service
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 898-99 (3d Cir.) cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 *1285 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Quigg
(3×)
See Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 808 F.2d 1490, 1499-1501 , 1 USPQ2d 1337, 1344-45 (Fed.Cir.1986), cer t. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 229 USPQ 916 (D.D.C.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 1581 , 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed.Cir.1987).
examined
Cited "see"
ca3 1989
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Karen SORLUCCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 898-99 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Tozzi v. Union Railroad
(3×)
See generally, Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897-98 (3d Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Bartek v. Urban Redevelopment Authority
(3×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Inter-City Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
William Joseph Healy, Jr. v. New York Life Insurance Company
(4×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts Inc., 814 F.2d 893 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); Sorba v. Pennsylvania Drilling Co., 821 F.2d 200 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 730 , 98 L.Ed.2d 679 (1988); see also Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-57 , 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (analogous standard for gender discrimination).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel University
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 899 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh, 826 F.2d 230, 236 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 732 , 98 L.Ed.2d 680 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cherchi v. Mobil Oil Corp.
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (ADEA), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City of Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania
(4×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (en banc) (citing Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1003 (3d Cir.1984)), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Metzger v. Osbeck
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 900 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987). 12 In this regard we observe that a jury might reasonably conclude that in view of Osbeck's position as a physical education instructor and wrestling coach, he was aware of the inherent risks of restraining Metzger.
cited
Cited "see"
Metzger ex rel. Metzger v. Osbeck
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 900 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 816 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1987
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, 814 F.2d 893 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 915 (1987); Maxfield v. Sinclair International, 766 F.2d 788, 793 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1057 , 106 S.Ct. 796 , 88 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897-98 (3d Cir.1987) (ultimate burden of proof of unlawful discrimination is borne by a plaintiff throughout the proceeding and defendant’s burden consists of producing a rebuttal to inference created by a plaintiff’s prima facie case), cert, dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bhaya v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, 814 F.2d 893 (3d Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 915 (1987); Maxfield v. Sinclair International, 766 F.2d 788, 793 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1057 , 106 S.Ct. 796 , 88 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barbara Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
(2×)
See id. at 896, 898 . 34 An employee may rebut a defendant's claim that it had a legitimate reason for firing her "indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." 18 Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256 , 101 S.Ct. at 1095 ; see Chipollini, 814 F.2d at 898 (same under the ADEA).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jaime Blum, Brij Kapur and James C. Spitsbergen, in 86-5349 v. Witco Chemical Corporation, in 86-5310
(2×)
See Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 895 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert, dismissed — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 , (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Insurance
(3×)
Standard for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Centennial Insurance v. Lithotech Sales, LLC
(3×)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, *217 show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipol-lini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Harrow v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
(3×)
Standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Mullen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
(3×)
Summary Judgment Standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Siss v. County of Passaic
(3×)
Standard A. Rule 56 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Daewoo International (America) Corp. v. Sea-Land Orient Ltd.
(3×)
Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Lapsley v. Columbia University-College of Physicians & Surgeons
(3×)
Co., 760 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir.1985) ("Employers are rarely so cooperative as to include a notation in the personnel file, 'fired due to age,’ or to inform a dismissed employee candidly that he is too old for the job.”); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 899 (3d Cir.) (noting that direct proof of improper bias is "often unavailable or difficult to find”), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987). 9 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Old Bridge Owners Cooperative Corp. v. Township of Old Bridge
(3×)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a mátter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
W.P. v. Poritz
(3×)
Summary Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Metsopulos v. Runyon
(3×)
See also Chipollini v. Spencer *864 Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 899 (3d Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 , 108 S.Ct. 26 , 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheridan v. DuPont & Co.
See, e.g., Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.)(in banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052 (1987); Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1003 (3d Cir. 1984).
Tennessee Valley Authority
v.
Alco Standard Corp.
v.
Alco Standard Corp.
No. 86-1878.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 9, 1987.
Cited by 264 opinions | Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari dismissed under
this Court’s Rule 53.