green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. State
Accord Grosjean v. First Energy Corp. , 349 F.3d 332 , 336-40 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. den. , 541 U.S. 1010 , 124 S.Ct. 2069 , 158 L.Ed.2d 620 (2004) (reviewing federal case law and noting that, in the "overwhelming body of cases in most circuits," age differences of less than 10 years are not sufficiently substantial to establish the fourth part of the age discrimination prima facie case without other evidence that the employer considered the age significant, and then setting a more "lenient" standard of six years).
discussed
Cited "see"
Susan P. Asmo v. Keane, Inc.
(2×)
See Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 335 (6th Cir. 2003) ("He therefore failed to make his prima facie case [of age discrimination] and we need not address the legitimate-reason and pretext parts of the McDonnell analysis . . . ."), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1010 , 124 S.Ct. 2069 , 158 L.Ed.2d 620 (2004). 59 Finally, even if our precedents permitted a plaintiff to satisfy the causal-nexus element with evidence of temporal proximity alone in a pregnancy-discrimination case, Asmo's claim still fails.
discussed
Cited "see"
Asmo v. Keane Inc
See Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 335 (6th Cir. 2003) (“He therefore failed to make his prima facie case [of age discrimination] and we need not address the legitimate-reason and pretext parts of the McDonnell analysis . . . .”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1010 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
FLORIDA DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERV. v. Freeman
See Freeman v. Florida, 541 U.S. 1010 , 124 S.Ct. 2069 , 158 L.Ed.2d 620 (2004) (denying review).
cited
Cited "see"
Stancle v. State
See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1010 , 124 S.Ct. 2069 , 158 L.Ed.2d 620 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SRS Enters., Inc. v. Rosemex, Inc.
To the extent plaintiff bases the tortious interference claim on putative wrongful conduct or the claim that defendants were motivated solely by a desire to harm plaintiff, even according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, plaintiff fails to allege [*2]any sufficiently egregious wrong where defendants were not at least partially acting for their own economic interest within the scope of the Lien Law ( Steiner Sports Mktg., Inc. v Weinreb , 88 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Levy v P & R Dental Strategies , 302 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 501 [20…
Levy
v.
P&r Dental Strategies, Inc.
v.
P&r Dental Strategies, Inc.
03-1189.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 26, 2004.
Published
LEVY
v.
P&R DENTAL STRATEGIES, INC., ET AL.
No. 03-1189.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 26, 2004.
1
App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 302 App. Div. 2d 255, 756 N. Y. S. 2d 3.