green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.6 score
“in both ... the rights involved were public rights - as opposed to the private rights asserted here - and a judgment declaring a public right may be annulled by subsequent legislation.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Salix v. United States Forest Service
(2×)
pacific rivers (1994)
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Taylor v. State of Ariz.
in both ... the rights involved were public rights - as opposed to the private rights asserted here - and a judgment declaring a public right may be annulled by subsequent legislation.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp.
See Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Aguada v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 993 F.2d 269, 273 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 720 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
See United States v. Ryan, 41 F. 3d 361 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995). [8] Notably, the Court in Russell did not rest its holding on the expansive interpretation advanced by the Government both in Russell and in this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Ryan, 41 F. 3d 361 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Ryan, 41 F. 3d 361 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Stewart v. United States Trustee (In Re Stewart)
See Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 489 (10th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 720 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Co.
See Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995) (U.S. Forest Service land management plans were “actions that ‘may affect’ the protected salmon because the plans set forth criteria for harvesting resources within the salmon’s habitat”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ryan
See United States v. Ryan, 41 F.3d 361 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stuart v. STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPT. OF SAFETY
See United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995); In re King Properties, 535 Pa. 321 , 635 A.2d 128, 133 (1993). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Located at 25 Sandra Court, Sandwich, Illinois, Appeal of Matthew Enoch and Deanna Lyons
See United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994) (examining “(1) the nexus between the offense and the property and the extent of the property’s role in the offense, (2) the role and culpability of the owner, and (3) the possibility of separating offending property that can be readily separated from the remainder”), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Skillicorn
(2×)
See State v. Gray, 887 S.W.2d 369, 389 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1414 , 131 L.Ed.2d 299 (1995); State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 934 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1098 , 115 S.Ct. 1827 , 131 L.Ed.2d 748 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Strahan v. Linnon
See Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d at 1054 ("there is little doubt that Congress intended to enact a broad definition of agency action in the ESA, and therefore that the [Forest Service’s land resource management plans] are continuing agency action”), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995); Lane County Audubon Society v. Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.1992) (holding, inter alia, that document promulgated by Bureau of Land Management for conservation of the northern spotted owl was "agency action” requiring consultation under ESA). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see"
International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers v. Tennessee Valley Authority
See Kurinsky v. United States, 33 F.3d 594 , 599 (6th Cir.1994) (Bivens actions not subject to § 1658), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995) 5 Until 1946, the Supreme Court did not engage in a search for implied Congressional intent in such cases, but instead reasoned that, under the Rules of Decision Act (now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1652 ), the state statute of limitations applied of its own force in the absence of a federal pronouncement.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timmons v. Rose Acceptance, Inc. (In re Timmons)
“District courts may grant a Rule 60(b)(6) motion only in ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and only when such action is necessary to accomplish justice.” Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 729 (10th Cir.1993); see also Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 497 (10th Cir.1993) (“Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) ... is warranted only in exceptional circumstances”), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 720 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ciccimaro v. Emore (In Re Ciccimaro)
See, e.g., Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995); In re Ellsworth, 158 B.R. 856, 858 (M.D.Fla.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pope v. Gordon
See, e.g., Medlock, 322 S.C. at 132 , 470 S.E.2d *583 at 377 (adopting “excessive fíne test” set forth by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995)); Condon v. One 1985 BMW, 4 Door, VIN # WBAAE6403F0704170, 312 S.C. 431, 432 , 440 S.E.2d 895, 896 (Ct.App.1994)(applying Fourth Circuit cases to determine whether seized vehicle facilitated the unlawful transportation of controlled substances under sections 44-53-520(a)(4), (a)(6)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Basim Omar Sabri
See, e.g., United States v. Ryan, 41 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (concluding that the express jurisdictional element contained in 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) was merely an element of the offense and that "the court [would] not by the failure of proof on that element [be] deprived of judicial jurisdiction"), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 (1995). 4 expansive, unqualified language, both as to the bribes forbidden and the entities covered, does not support the interpretation that federal funds must be affected to violate" the statute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Basim Omar Sabri
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Ryan, 41 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc) (concluding that the express jurisdictional element contained in 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) was merely an element of the offense and that "the court [would] not by the failure of proof on that element [be] deprived of judicial jurisdiction"), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). 4 Although the Sixth Circuit has applied Dakota as good law, it has questioned its validity.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Lane-Smith
As authority for a partitioning of benefits, Spivey cites ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 , which provides that a civil action may be brought by a plan participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3)(emphasis added); see also Varity Corp. v. Howe, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 720 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jeremiah A. Jacobs
See, e.g., United States v. Morris, 18 F.3d 562, 565-66 (8th Cir.1994), and United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 838-40 (8th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Ryan, 41 F.3d 361, 366 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1793 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jeremiah Jacobs
See, e.g., United States v. Morris, 18 F.3d 562, 565-66 (8th Cir. 1994), and United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 838-40 (8th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ryan, 41 F.3d 361, 366 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 (1995).
Varity Corp.
v.
Howe
v.
Howe
No. 94-1471.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 24, 1995.
514 U.S. 1082
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. Montana (2) · D. Arizona (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.