Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225 · Web viewLEXSEE 407 US 225 Questioned As of: Dec 18, 2009 MITCHUM, DBA BOOK MART v. FOSTER ET AL. No. 70-27 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 407 U.S

Page 1

LEXSEE 407 US 225

QuestionedAs of: Dec 18, 2009

MITCHUM, DBA BOOK MART v. FOSTER ET AL.

No. 70-27

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

407 U.S. 225; 92 S. Ct. 2151; 32 L. Ed. 2d 705; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104

December 13, 1971, Argued June 19, 1972, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

DISPOSITION: 315 F.Supp. 1387, reversed and re-manded.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee prosecuting at-torney brought suit against appellant bookstore owner to close down his bookstore. The bookstore owner sought to restrain the state court proceedings, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida refused to do so on the grounds that the injunctive relief sought did not come within the exceptions of the Anti-In-junction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. The bookstore owner challenged this judgment.

OVERVIEW: The prosecuting attorney sought to close down the bookstore as a public nuisance. The bookstore owner alleged that the state officers were depriving him of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 on the ground that the state court was unconstitutionally applying Flor-ida laws so as to cause him great and irreparable harm. The district court refused to enjoin the state court pro-ceeding because the relief sought did not come under any

of the exceptions set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. On ap-peal, the court held that federal injunctive relief was ap-propriate only where the irreparable injury was both great and immediate, the state law was flagrantly uncon-stitutional, or there was a showing of bad faith that would call for equitable relief. The court added that to qualify under one of those expressly authorized excep-tions, the federal law did not have to expressly reference ß 2283. The test was whether an act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state proceeding. The court held that 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 fell within the exception.

OUTCOME: The Court reversed the district court's or-der denying injunctive relief and remanded the case for further proceedings because the statute under which the bookstore owner sought relief was an authorized excep-tion to the Anti-Injunction Act.

CORE TERMS: anti-injunction, injunction, expressly authorized, enjoin, Act of Congress, civil rights, federal-ism, immunities secured, companion cases, redress, color, state law, federal government, federal right, in-junctive relief, statutory exceptions, criminal prosecu-tions, deprivation, predecessor, qualify, comity, Judiciary Act, federal laws, interpleader, relitigation, irreparable, effectuate, restrain, evident, corpus

Page 2

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction Act[HN1] See 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283.

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActCivil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope[HN2] An Act of Congress, 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983, ex-pressly authorizes a "suit in equity" to redress the depri-vation, under color of state law, of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.

Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope[HN3] See 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983.

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction Act[HN4] On its face the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283, is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. Any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to ß 2283 if it is to be up-held.

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > General Overview[HN5] Even the possible unconstitutionality of a state statute "on its face" does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it. However, the United States Supreme Court has clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain exceptional circumstances: where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions, or where there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circum-stances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions ap-propriate.

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActGovernments > Federal Government > U.S. Congress[HN6] In order to qualify under the "expressly autho-rized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not contain an express reference to that statute. No prescribed formula is required; an authorization need not expressly refer to 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283. Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an excep-tion. Thirdly, in order to qualify as an "expressly autho-rized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, an act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely fed-eral right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of eq-uity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding. The test is whether an act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.

Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction ActCivil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview[HN7] 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 is a product of a vast transfor-mation from the concepts of federalism that had pre-vailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction statute was enacted. The very purpose of ß 1983 is to in-terpose the federal courts between the states and the peo-ple, as guardians of the people's federal rights: to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. In carrying out that purpose, Congress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunctions in ß 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a "suit in equity" as one of the means of redress. Federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circum-stances be essential to prevent great, immediate, and ir-reparable loss of a person's constitutional rights. For these reasons, under the criteria established in previous decisions construing the anti-injunction statute, ß 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the "expressly autho-rized" exception of that law.

SUMMARY:

After a Florida county prosecutor had instituted state court proceedings to close down the appellant's book-store as a public nuisance, and after the state court had issued an order prohibiting continued operation of the bookstore, the appellant, suing in the United States Dis-trict Court for the Northern District of Florida, sought in-junctive relief against the state court proceedings, on the

Page 3

ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and ir-reparable harm. The appellant relied on a federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) authorizing suits in equity to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of federal constitutional rights. A three-judge District Court was convened and held that injunctive relief was pre-cluded by the anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunctions stay-ing state court proceedings "except as expressly autho-rized by Act of Congress" (315 F Supp 1387).

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court re-versed and remanded the case. In an opinion by Stewart, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court, it was held that 1983 constituted an "expressly authorized" ex-ception to 2283, and that 2283 thus did not preclude in-junctive relief in the present case.

Burger, Ch. J., joined by White and Blackmun, JJ., concurred in the court's opinion and noted that although 2283 did not bar an injunction, the District Court should, on remand, consider whether general notions of equity or principles of federalism precluded the issuance of an in-junction against state court proceedings.

Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., did not participate.

LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:

[***LEdHN1]

COURTS ß700.5

federal injunction -- stay of state court proceedings --

Headnote:[1A][1B]

The federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) au-thorizing a suit in equity to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of federal constitutional rights, consti-tutes an "expressly authorized" exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting fed-eral courts from granting injunctions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," and a Federal District Court errs in holding that, because of the anti-injunction statute, it is without power in a 1983 action to enjoin a proceeding pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.

[***LEdHN2]

COURTS ß691


Headnote:[2]

The federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) providing, subject to specified exceptions, that federal courts may not grant injunctions staying state court pro-ceedings, does not merely state a flexible doctrine of comity, but imposes an absolute ban upon the issuance of a federal injunction against a pending state court pro-ceeding, in the absence of one of the recognized excep-tions, regardless of whether a pending state court pro-ceeding is civil or criminal, and regardless of how extra-ordinary the particular circumstances may be.

[***LEdHN3]

INJUNCTION ß80

enforcement of statute --

Headnote:[3]

Even the possible unconstitutionality of a statute on its face does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it.

[***LEdHN4]

COURTS ß698

federal injunction -- pending state criminal proceed-ings --

Headnote:[4]

Federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution may be proper in certain exceptional circumstances, such as where irreparable injury is both great and immediate, or where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibi-tions, or where there is a showing of bad faith, harass-ment, or other unsual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.

[***LEdHN5]

COURTS ß698

federal injunction -- pending state criminal proceed-ings --

Headnote:[5]

Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction, and perhaps in other extra-ordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown, is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.

[***LEdHN6]

COURTS ß691

Page 4


Headnote:[6]

The basic purpose of the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) providing, subject to specified exceptions, that federal courts may not grant injunctions staying state court proceedings, is to prevent needless friction between state and federal courts.

[***LEdHN7]

COURTS ß691


Headnote:[7]

In order to qualify under the "expressly authorized" exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunc-tions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," a federal law need not contain an express reference to the anti-injunction statute.

[***LEdHN8]

COURTS ß691


Headnote:[8]

A federal law need not expressly authorize an in-junction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting in-junctions staying state court proceedings "except as ex-pressly authorized by Act of Congress."

[***LEdHN9]

COURTS ß691


Headnote:[9]

In order to qualify as an "expressly authorized" ex-ception to the federal anti-injunction statute (28 USCS 2283) prohibiting federal courts from granting injunc-tions staying state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress," an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or rem-edy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, which could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding; however, in order to

come within this exception, an Act of Congress need not, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be totally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti- injunction statute; the test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.

[***LEdHN10]

RIGHTS ß12.5

remedy for deprivation --

Headnote:[10]

The purpose of the federal civil rights statute (42 USCS 1983) authorizing an action at law, a suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress of a deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Federal Constitution and federal laws, is to interpose the federal courts between the states and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights, and thus to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial; in carrying out this purpose, Congress, by expressly au-thorizing a suit in equity as one of the means of redress, has plainly authorized the federal courts to issue injunc-tions in 1983 actions.

[***LEdHN11]

COURTS ß691

federal injunction --

Headnote:[11]

Federal injunctive relief against a state court pro-ceeding can in some circumstances be essential to pre-vent great, immediate, and irreparable loss of a person's constitutional rights.

SYLLABUS

Title 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, which authorizes a suit in equity to redress the deprivation under color of state law "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . ," is within that exception of the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, that provides that a federal court may not enjoin state court proceed-ings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Con-gress." And in this ß 1983 action, though the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a fed-eral court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding (cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and companion cases) are not questioned, the District Court is held to have erred in holding that the anti-injunction statute ab-solutely barred its enjoining a pending state court pro-

Page 5

ceeding under any circumstances whatsoever. Pp. 228-243.

COUNSEL: Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul Shimek, Jr.

Raymond L. Marky, Assistant Attorney General of Flor-ida, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant Attorney General.

George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, and Michael R. Perle and John DeCicco, Deputy Attor-neys General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae.

JUDGES: Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all members joined except Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Burger, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which White and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 243.

OPINION BY: STEWART

OPINION

[*226] [***708] [**2153] MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. [***LEdHR1A] [1A]The federal anti-injunction statute provides that a federal court [HN1] "may not grant an in-junction to stay proceedings in a State court except as ex-pressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where neces-sary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 1[HN2] An Act of Congress, 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, expressly authorizes a "suit in equity" to redress "the deprivation," under color of state law, "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . ." 2 The question before us [**2154] is whether this "Act of Congress" comes within the "ex-pressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute so as to permit a federal court in a ß 1983 suit to grant an injunction to stay a proceeding pending in a state court. This question, which has divided the federal courts, 3 has lurked in the background of many of our re-cent cases, but we have not until today explicitly decided it. 4

1 28 U. S. C. ß 2283.2 The statute provides in full: [HN3] "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordi-nance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."3 Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (CA3) (ß 1983 is an "expressly authorized" exception), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (CA4) (ß 1983 is not an "expressly au-thorized" exception).4 See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 484 n. 2; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 613 n. 3; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54. See also Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 556; Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15.

In Younger, supra, MR. JUSTICE DOU-GLAS was the only member of the Court who took a position on the question now before us. He expressed the view that ß 1983 is included in the "expressly authorized exception to ß 2283 . . . ." 401 U.S., at 62. Cf. id., at 54 (STEWART, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 120 n. 14 (separate opin-ion of BRENNAN, J., joined by WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ.).

[*227] I

The prosecuting attorney of Bay County, Florida, brought a proceeding in a Florida court to close down the appellant's bookstore as a public nuisance under the claimed authority of Florida law. The state court [***709] entered a preliminary order prohibiting contin-ued operation of the bookstore. After further inconclu-sive proceedings in the state courts, the appellant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the actions of the state judicial and law enforcement officials were de-priving him of rights protected by the First and Four-teenth Amendments. Relying upon 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, 5

he asked for injunctive and declaratory relief against the state court proceedings, on the ground that Florida laws were being unconstitutionally applied by the state court so as to cause him great and irreparable harm. A single federal district judge issued temporary restraining orders, and a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. ßß 2281 and 2284. After a hearing, the three-judge court dissolved the temporary restraining orders and re-fused to enjoin the state court proceeding, holding that the "injunctive relief sought here [*228] as to the pro-ceedings pending in the Florida courts does not come un-der any of the exceptions set forth in Section 2283. It is not expressly authorized by Act of Congress, it is not necessary in the aid of this court's jurisdiction, and it is not sought in order to protect or effectuate any judgment

Page 6

of this court." 315 F.Supp. 1387, 1389. An appeal was brought directly here under 28 U. S. C. ß 1253, 6 and we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 U.S. 941.

5 Federal jurisdiction was based upon 28 U. S. C. ß 1343 (3). The statute states in relevant part:

"The district courts shall have original juris-diction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

. . . .

"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immu-nity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States . . . ."6 The statute provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or deny-ing, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges."

[**2155] II [***LEdHR2] [2]In denying injunctive relief, the Dis-trict Court relied on this Court's decision in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-neers, 398 U.S. 281. The Atlantic Coast Line case did not deal with the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, 7 but the Court's opinion in that case does bring into sharp focus the critical importance of the question now before us. For in that case we ex-pressly rejected the view that the anti-injunction statute merely states a flexible doctrine of comity, 8 and made clear that the statute imposes an absolute ban upon the is-suance of a federal injunction against a pending [*229] state court proceeding, in the [***710] absence of one of the recognized exceptions:

[HN4] "On its face the present Act is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, un-less the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a 'principle of comity,' not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. The ar-gument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that ac-tion cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. We cannot accept any such contention. . . . [We] hold that any injunction against state court proceedings other-

wise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to ß 2283 if it is to be upheld. . . ." 398 U.S., at 286-287.

7 At issue were the other two exceptions of the anti-injunction statute: "where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judg-ments." Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brother-hood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 288.8 See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Vil-lage of Skokie, 173 F.2d 1; Baines, 337 F.2d, at 593. See also Taylor & Willis, The Power of Fed-eral Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1194 (1933).

It follows, in the present context, that if 42 U. S. C. ß 1983 is not within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, then a federal equity court is wholly without power to grant any relief in a ß 1983 suit seeking to stay a state court proceeding. In short, if a ß 1983 action is not an "expressly authorized" statutory exception, the anti-injunction law absolutely prohibits in such an action all federal equitable intervention in a pending state court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, and regardless of how extraordinary the particular cir-cumstances may be.

Last Term, in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and its companion cases, 9 the Court dealt at length with the subject of federal judicial intervention in pending [*230] state criminal prosecutions. In Younger a three-judge federal district court in a ß 1983 action had enjoined a criminal prosecution pending in a California court. In asking us to reverse that judgment, the appellant argued that the injunction was in violation of the federal anti-in-junction statute. 401 U.S., at 40. But the Court carefully eschewed any reliance on the statute in reversing the judgment, basing its decision instead upon what the Court called "Our Federalism" -- upon "the national pol-icy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circum-stances." 401 U.S., at 41, 44.

9 Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66; Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82; Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200; Byrne v. Kar-alexis, 401 U.S. 216.

[**2156] [***LEdHR3] [3] [***LEdHR4] [4] [***LEdHR5] [5]In Younger, this Court emphatically reaffirmed "the fundamental policy against federal inter-ference with state criminal prosecutions." 401 U.S., at 46.It made clear that [HN5] even "the possible unconsti-tutionality of a statute 'on its face' does not in itself jus-

Page 7

tify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it." 401 U.S., at 54. At the same time, however, the Court clearly left room for federal injunctive intervention in a pending state court prosecution in certain excep-tional circumstances -- where irreparable injury is "both great and immediate," 401 U.S., at 46, where the state law is "'flagrantly and patently violative of express con-stitutional prohibitions,'" 401 U.S., at 53, [***711] or where there is a showing of "bad faith, harassment, or . . . other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief." 401 U.S., at 54. In the companion case of Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, the Court said that "only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions un-dertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraor-dinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending [*231] state prosecutions appropriate." 401 U.S., at 85. See also Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 203.

While the Court in Younger and its companion cases expressly disavowed deciding the question now before us -- whether ß 1983 comes within the "expressly autho-rized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, 401 U.S., at 54 -- it is evident that our decisions in those cases cannot be disregarded in deciding this question. In the first place, if ß 1983 is not within the statutory exception, then the anti-injunction statute would have absolutely barred the injunction issued in Younger, as the appellant in that case argued, and there would have been no occa-sion whatever for the Court to decide that case upon the "policy" ground of "Our Federalism." Secondly, if ß 1983 is not within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, then we must overrule Younger and its companion cases insofar as they recog-nized the permissibility of injunctive relief against pend-ing criminal prosecutions in certain limited and excep-tional circumstances. For, under the doctrine of Atlantic Coast Line, the anti-injunction statute would, in a ß 1983 case, then be an "absolute prohibition" against federal equity intervention in a pending state criminal or civil proceeding -- under any circumstances whatever.

The Atlantic Coast Line and Younger cases thus serve to delineate both the importance and the finality of the question now before us. And it is in the shadow of those cases that the question must be decided.

III [***LEdHR6] [6]The anti-injunction statute goes back almost to the beginnings of our history as a Nation. In 1793, Congress enacted a law providing that no "writ of injunction be granted [by any federal court] to stay pro-ceedings [*232] in any court of a state. . . ." Act of March 2, 1793; 1 Stat. 335. The precise origins of the

legislation are shrouded in obscurity, 10 but the consistent [***712] understanding [*233] [**2157] has been that its basic purpose is to prevent "needless friction between state and federal courts." Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Gas Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9.The law remained unchanged until 1874, when it was amended to permit a federal court to stay state court proceedings that interfered with the ad-ministration of a federal bankruptcy proceeding. 11 The present wording of the legislation was adopted with the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code in 1948.

10 "The history of this provision in the Judiciary Act of 1793 is not fully known. We know that on December 31, 1790, Attorney General Edmund Randolph reported to the House of Representa-tives on desirable changes in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Am. State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 17, pp. 21-36. The most serious question raised by Randolph concerned the arduousness of the cir-cuit duties imposed on the Supreme Court jus-tices. But the Report also suggested a number of amendments dealing with procedural matters. A section of the proposed bill submitted by him provided that 'no injunction in equity shall be granted by a district court to a judgment at law of a State court.' Id., p. 26. Randolph explained that this clause 'will debar the district court from in-terfering with the judgments at law in the State courts; for if the plaintiff and defendant rely upon the State courts, as far as the judgment, they ought to continue there as they have begun. It is enough to split the same suit into one at law, and another in equity, without adding a further sepa-ration, by throwing the common law side of the question into the State courts, and the equity side into the federal courts.' Id., p. 34. The Report was considered by the House sitting as a Com-mittee of the Whole, and then was referred to successive special committees for further consid-eration. No action was taken until after Chief Justice Jay and his associates wrote the President that their circuit-riding duties were too burden-some. American State Papers, Misc., vol. 1, No. 32, p. 51. In response to this complaint, which was transmitted to Congress, the Act of March 2, 1793, was passed, containing in ß 5, inter alia, the prohibition against staying state court pro-ceedings.

"Charles Warren in his article Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347, suggests that this provision was the direct consequence of Randolph's report. This seems doubtful, in view of the very narrow purpose of Randolph's proposal, namely, that federal courts

Page 8

of equity should not interfere with the enforce-ment of judgments at law rendered in the state courts. See Taylor and Willis, The Power of Fed-eral Courts to Enjoin Proceedings in State Courts, 42 Yale L. J. 1169, 1171, n. 14.

"There is no record of any debates over the statute. See 3 Annals of Congress (1791-93). It has been suggested that the provision reflected the then strong feeling against the unwarranted intrusion of federal courts upon state sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, was decided on February 18, 1793, less than two weeks before the provision was enacted into law. The signifi-cance of this proximity is doubtful. Compare Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 347-348, with Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 291-292. Much more probable is the suggestion that the provision reflected the prevailing prejudices against equity jurisdiction. The Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.), chronicling the pro-ceedings of the Senate while he was one of its members (1789-1791), contains abundant evi-dence of a widespread hostility to chancery prac-tice. See especially, pp. 92-94, 101-06 (debate on the bill that became Judiciary Act of 1789). Moreover, Senator Ellsworth (soon to become Chief Justice of the United States), the principal draftsman of both the 1789 and 1793 Judiciary Acts, often indicated a dislike for equity jurisdic-tion. See Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth (1905 ed.) 194; Journal of William Maclay (1927 ed.) 103-04; Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 96-100." Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 130-132.

See also Note, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 612 (1971); 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302 (1965); H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1075-1078 (1953); Durfee & Sloss, Federal Injunction Against Proceedings in State Courts: The Life History of a Statute, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 1145 (1932).11 As so amended, the statute provided that state court proceedings could be enjoined "where such injunction may be authorized by any law re-lating to proceedings in bankruptcy." Rev. Stat. ß 720 (1874).

Despite the seemingly uncompromising language of the anti-injunction statute prior to 1948, the Court soon [*234] recognized that exceptions must be made to its blanket prohibition if the import and purpose of other

Acts of Congress were to be given their intended scope. So it was that, in addition to the bankruptcy law excep-tion that Congress explicitly recognized in 1874, the Court through the years found that federal courts were empowered to enjoin state court proceedings, despite the anti-injunction statute, in [***713] carrying out the will [**2158] of Congress under at least six other federal laws. These covered a broad spectrum of congressional action: (1) legislation providing for removal of litigation from state to federal courts, 12 (2) legislation limiting the liability of shipowners, 13 (3) legislation providing for federal interpleader actions, 14 (4) legislation conferring federal jurisdiction over farm mortgages, 15 (5) legislation [*235] governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, 16

and (6) legislation providing for control of prices. 17

12 See French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226. The fed-eral removal provisions, both civil and criminal, 28 U. S. C. ßß 1441-1450, provide that once a copy of the removal petition is filed with the clerk of the state court, the "State court shall pro-ceed no further unless and until the case is re-manded." 28 U. S. C. ß 1446 (e).13 See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578. The Act of 1851, 9 Stat. 635, as amended, provides that once a shipowner has deposited with the court an amount equal to the value of his interest in the ship, "all claims and proceedings against the owner with respect to the matter in question shall cease." 46 U. S. C. ß 185.14 See Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66. The Interpleader Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 416, as currently written provides that in "any civil action of interpleader . . . a district court may . . . enter its order restraining [all claimants] . . . from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or United States court af-fecting the property, instrument or obligation in-volved in the interpleader action." 28 U. S. C. ß 2361.15 See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433. The Frazier-Lemke Farm-Mortgage Act, as amended in 1935, 49 Stat. 944, provides that in situations to which it is applicable a federal court shall "stay all judicial or official proceedings in any court." 11 U. S. C. ß 203 (s) (2) (1940 ed.).16 See Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 248-249. The Federal Habeas Corpus Act provides that a federal court before which a habeas corpus pro-ceeding is pending may "stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State Court . . . for any matter involved in the habeas corpus pro-ceeding." 28 U. S. C. ß 2251.

Page 9

17 Section 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Con-trol Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 33, provided that the Price Administrator could request a federal dis-trict court to enjoin acts that violated or threat-ened to violate the Act. In Porter v. Dicken, 328 U.S. 252, we held that this authority was broad enough to justify an injunction to restrain state court proceedings. Id., at 255. The Emergency Price Control Act was thus considered a congres-sionally authorized exception to the anti-injunc-tion statute. Ibid.; see also Bowles v. Willing-ham, 321 U.S. 503. Section 205 (a) expired in 1947. Act of July 25, 1946, 60 Stat. 664.

In addition to the exceptions to the anti-injunction statute found to be embodied in these various Acts of Congress, the Court recognized other "implied" excep-tions to the blanket prohibition of the anti-injunction statute. One was an "in rem" exception, allowing a fed-eral court to enjoin a state court proceeding in order to protect its jurisdiction of a res over which it had first ac-quired jurisdiction. 18 Another was a "relitigation" excep-tion, permitting a federal court to enjoin relitigation in a state court of issues already decided in federal litigation. 19 Still a third exception, more [***714] recently devel-oped, permits a federal injunction of state [*236] court proceedings [**2159] when the plaintiff in the federal court is the United States itself, or a federal agency as-serting "superior federal interests." 20

18 See, e. g., Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S., at 135-136; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226.19 See, e. g., Toucey, supra, at 137-141; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U.S. 340; Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356. See generally 1A J. Moore, Federal Practice 2302-2311 (1965).20 Leiter Minerals Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 220; NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138.

In Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, the Court in 1941 issued an opinion casting considerable doubt upon the approach to the anti-injunction statute re-flected in its previous decisions. The Court's opinion ex-pressly disavowed the "relitigation" exception to the statute, and emphasized generally the importance of rec-ognizing the statute's basic directive "of 'hands off' by the federal courts in the use of the injunction to stay litiga-tion in a state court." 314 U.S., at 132. The congres-sional response to Toucey was the enactment in 1948 of the anti-injunction statute in its present form in 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, which, as the Reviser's Note makes evident, served not only to overrule the specific holding of

Toucey, 21 but to restore "the basic law as generally un-derstood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision." 22

21 The Reviser's Note states in part: "The ex-ceptions specifically include the words 'to protect or effectuate its judgments,' for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., . . . 314 U.S. 118 . . . .) A vigorous dissenting opinion [314 U.S. 141] notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts . . . of the United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress in-tended no change." H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A181-182 (1947).22 Ibid.

[***LEdHR7] [7] [***LEdHR8] [8] [***LEdHR9] [9]We proceed, then, upon the understanding that in de-termining whether ß 1983 comes within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, the [*237] criteria to be applied are those reflected in the Court's decisions prior to Toucey. 23 A review of those decisions makes reasonably clear what the relevant crite-ria are. In the first place, it is evident that, [HN6] in or-der to qualify under the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute, a federal law need not con-tain an express reference to that statute. As the Court has said, "no prescribed formula is required; an authorization need not expressly refer to ß 2283." Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U.S. 511, 516.Indeed, none of the previously recognized statutory exceptions contains any such reference. 24 Secondly, a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an excep-tion. Three of the six previously recognized statutory ex-ceptions contain no such authorization. 25 Thirdly, it [***715] is clear that, in order to qualify as an "ex-pressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, an Act of Congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the fed-eral court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding. This is not [*238] to say that in order to come within the exception [**2160] an Act of Congress must, on its face and in every one of its provisions, be to-tally incompatible with the prohibition of the anti-injunc-tion statute. 26 The test, rather, is whether an Act of Con-gress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforce-able in a federal court of equity, could be given its in-tended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.

Page 10

See Toucey, supra, at 132-134; Kline v. Burke Con-struction Co., 260 U.S. 226; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578, 599; Treinies v. Sun-shine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 78; Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503.

23 Cf. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. Co., 348 U.S. 511, 521 (dissenting opinion).24 See nn. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, supra.25 See nn. 12, 13, and 17, supra. The federal courts have found that other Acts of Congress that do not refer to ß 2283 or to injunctions against state court proceedings nonetheless come within the "expressly authorized" language of the anti-injunction statute. See, e. g., Walling v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 59 F.Supp. 348, 351 (WD Ky.) (the Fair Labor Standards Act); Okin v. SEC, 161 F.2d 978, 980 (CA2) (the Public Utility Holding Company Act); Dilworth v. Riner, 343 F.2d 226, 230 (CA5) (the 1964 Civil Rights Act); Studebaker Corp. v. Gittlin, 360 F.2d 692 (CA2) (the Securities and Ex-change Act).26 Cf. Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (CA4).

With these criteria in view, we turn to consideration of 42 U. S. C. ß 1983.

IV

Section 1983 was originally ß 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 17 Stat. 13. It was "modeled" on ß 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, 27 and was enacted for the express purpose of "enforc[ing] the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." 17 Stat. 13. The predeces-sor of ß 1983 was thus an important part of the basic al-teration in our federal system wrought in the Reconstruc-tion era through federal legislation and constitutional amendment. 28 As a result of the [*239] new structure of law that emerged in the post-Civil War era -- and espe-cially of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was its cen-terpiece -- the role of the Federal Government as a guar-antor of basic federal rights against state power was clearly established. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Mc-Neese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 245-249; H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908); J. tenBroek, The Anti-Slavery Ori-gins [***716] of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951). 29

Section 1983 opened the federal courts to private citi-zens, offering a uniquely federal remedy against incur-sions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Nation. 30

27 See remarks of Representative Shellabarger, chairman of the House Select Committee which drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871), and Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 545 n. 9.28 In addition to proposing the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, Con-gress, from 1866 to 1875 enacted the following civil rights legislation: Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140; Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13; and Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. 335. In 1875, Congress also passed the general federal-question provision, giving federal courts the power to hear suits aris-ing under Art. III, ß 2, of the Constitution. Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470. This is the prede-cessor of 28 U. S. C. ß 1331.29 See generally Gressman, The Unhappy His-tory of Civil Rights Legislation, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 1323 (1952); Note, 75 Yale L. J. 1007 (1966); F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 65 (1928). As one com-mentator has put it: "That statutory plan [of the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress to enforce it] did supply the means of vindicating those rights [of person and property] through the instrumentalities of the federal government. . . . It did constitute the federal government the pro-tector of the civil rights . . . ." TenBroek, at 185. See also United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801 n. 9; K. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction (1965).30 As Representative Shellabarger stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 "not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all peo-ple where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871). And as Representative Hoar stated: "The principal dan-ger that menaces us to-day is from the effort within the States to deprive considerable numbers of persons of the civil and equal rights which the General Government is endeavoring to secure to them." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 335.

Although, as originally drafted in 1871, ß 1983's predecessor protected rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, the pro-vision included by the Congress in the Revised Statutes of 1874 was enlarged to provide protec-

Page 11

tion for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law as well. Rev. Stat. ß 1979.

[*240] [**2161] It is clear from the legislative de-bates surrounding passage of ß 1983's predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "against State action, . . . whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial." Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 (emphasis sup-plied). Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop de-privations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.

As Representative Lowe stated, the "records of the [state] tribunals are searched in vain for evidence of ef-fective redress [of federally secured rights] . . . . What less than this [the Civil Rights Act of 1871] will afford an adequate remedy? The Federal Government cannot serve a writ of mandamus upon State Executives or upon State courts to compel them to protect the rights, privi-leges and immunities of citizens . . . . The case has arisen . . . when the Federal Government must resort to its own agencies to carry its own authority into execu-tion. Hence this bill throws open the doors of the United States courts to those whose rights under the Constitution are denied or impaired." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374-376 (1871). This view was echoed by Senator Osborn: "If the State courts had proven themselves com-petent to suppress the local disorders, [*241] or to maintain law and order, we should not have been called upon to legislate . . . . We are driven by existing facts to provide for the several states in the South what they have been unable to fully provide for themselves; i. e., the full and complete administration of justice in the courts. And the courts with reference to which we legislate must be the United States [***717] courts." Id., at 653. And Representative Perry concluded: "Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; wit-nesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand and petit ju-ries act as if they might be accomplices . . . . All the ap-paratus and machinery of civil government, all the pro-cesses of justice, skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection. Among the most dan-gerous things an injured party can do is to appeal to jus-tice." Id., at App. 78. 31

31 Representative Coburn stated: "The United States courts are further above mere local influ-ence than the county courts; their judges can act with more independence, cannot be put under ter-ror, as local judges can; their sympathies are not so nearly identified with those of the vicinage; the jurors are taken from the State, and not the neighborhood; they will be able to rise above

prejudices or bad passions or terror more easily. . . ." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 460 (1871).

See also id., at App. 85 (Rep. Bingham); 321 (Rep. Stoughton); 333-334 (Rep. Hoar); 389 (Rep. Elliot); 394 (Rep. Rainey); 429 (Rep. Beatty); App. 68-69 (Rep. Shellabarger); App. 78 (Rep. Perry); 345 (Sen. Sherman); 505 (Sen. Pratt); 577 (Sen. Carpenter); 651 (Sen. Sumner); 653 (Sen. Osborn); App. 255 (Sen. Wilson). Cf. id., at 697 (Sen. Edmunds).

Those who opposed the Act of 1871 clearly recog-nized that the proponents were extending federal power in an attempt to remedy the state courts' failure to secure federal rights. The debate was not about whether the pre-decessor of ß 1983 extended to actions of state [*242] courts, [**2162] but whether this innovation was neces-sary or desirable. 32

32 See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 361 (Rep. Swann); 385 (Rep. Lewis); 416 (Rep. Biggs); 429 (Rep. McHenry); App. 179 (Rep. Voorhees); 599-600 (Sen. Saulsbury); App. 216 (Sen. Thurman).

This legislative history makes evident that Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship be-tween the States and the Nation with respect to the pro-tection of federally created rights; it was concerned that state instrumentalities could not protect those rights; it realized that state officers might, in fact, be antipathetic to the vindication of those rights; and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts.

V [***LEdHR1B] [1B] [***LEdHR10] [10] [***LEdHR11] [11]Section 1983 [HN7] was thus a product of a vast transformation from the concepts of federalism that had prevailed in the late 18th century when the anti-injunction statute was enacted. The very purpose of ß 1983 was to interpose the federal courts be-tween the States and the people, as guardians of the peo-ple's federal rights -- to protect the people from unconsti-tutional action under color of state law, "whether that ac-tion be executive, legislative, or judicial." Ex parte Vir-ginia, 100 U.S., at 346.In carrying out that purpose, Con-gress plainly authorized the federal courts to issue in-junctions in ß 1983 actions, by expressly authorizing a "suit in equity" as one of the means of redress. And this Court long ago recognized that federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in some circum-stances be essential to prevent great, immediate, and ir-reparable loss of a person's constitutional rights. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123; cf. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S.

Page 12

33; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479. For these rea-sons we conclude that, under the [*243] criteria estab-lished in our previous decisions construing the anti-in-junction statute, [***718] ß 1983 is an Act of Congress that falls within the "expressly authorized" exception of that law.

In so concluding, we do not question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding. These principles, in the context of state criminal prosecutions, were canvassed at length last Term in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, and its companion cases. They are principles that have been emphasized by this Court many times in the past. Fen-ner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U.S. 45; Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387; Williams v. Miller, 317 U.S. 599; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117; Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611. Today we decide only that the District Court in this case was in error in holding that, because of the anti-injunction statute, it was absolutely without power in this ß 1983 action to enjoin a proceed-ing pending in a state court under any circumstances whatsoever.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or deci-sion of this case.

CONCUR BY: BURGER

CONCUR

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring.

I concur in the opinion of the Court and add a few words to emphasize what [**2163] the Court is and is not deciding today as I read the opinion. The Court holds [*244] only that 28 U. S. C. ß 2283, which is an absolute bar to injunctions against state court proceed-ings in most suits, does not apply to a suit brought under 42 U. S. C. ß 1983 seeking an injunction of state pro-ceedings. But, as the Court's opinion has noted, it does nothing to "question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a fed-eral court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding." Ante, at 243. In the context of pending state criminal proceedings, we held in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that these principles allow a federal court prop-erly to issue an injunction in only a narrow class of cir-cumstances. We have not yet reached or decided exactly how great a restraint is imposed by these principles on a federal court asked to enjoin state civil proceedings. Therefore, on remand in this case, it seems to me the District Court, before reaching a decision on the merits of appellant's claim, should properly consider whether general notions of equity or principles of federalism, similar to those invoked in Younger, prevent the issuance of an injunction against the state "nuisance abatement" proceedings in the circumstances of this case.

REFERENCES42 Am Jur 2d, Injunctions 235

US L Ed Digest, Courts 691, 700.5

ALR Digests, Courts 313, 314

L Ed Index to Anno (Rev ed), Injunction

ALR Quick Index, Injunctions

Federal Quick Index, Injunctions

Page 13

Copyright 2009 SHEPARD'S(R) - 1744 Citing references

Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104 (1972) Restrictions: Unrestricted FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS termsPrint Format: FULLCiting Ref. Signal: Hidden

SHEPARD'S SUMMARY

Unrestricted Shepard's SummaryNo subsequent appellate history. Prior history available.

Citing References:

Questioned Analyses: Questioned (1) Cautionary Analyses: Distinguished (10), Limited (1) Positive Analyses: Followed (53) Neutral Analyses: Concurring Opinion (3), Dissenting Op. (57), Explained (23) Other Sources: Law Reviews (461), Statutes (3), Treatises (39), Annotations (3), Court Documents (369) LexisNexis Headnotes: HN2 (85), HN4 (318), HN5 (129), HN6 (526), HN7 (574) PRIOR HISTORY ( 1 citing reference )

1. Mitchum v. Foster, 315 F. Supp. 1387, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10827 (N.D. Fla. 1970)

Reversed by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104 (1972)

CITING DECISIONS ( 868 citing decisions )

U.S. SUPREME COURT

2. Cited by:Haywood v. Drown, 129 S. Ct. 2108, 173 L. Ed. 2d 920, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3807, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 871 (U.S. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

129 S. Ct. 2108 p.2114173 L. Ed. 2d 920 p.928

3. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 165 L. Ed. 2d 368, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4891, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 332 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

548 U.S. 81 p.108126 S. Ct. 2378 p.2396

Page 14

165 L. Ed. 2d 368 p.389

4. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 119 S. Ct. 1624, 143 L. Ed. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 3631, 67 U.S.L.W. 4345, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 247, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3846, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3019, 99 D.A.R. 4908, 48 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1513, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 21133 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

526 U.S. 687 p.751119 S. Ct. 1624 p.1659143 L. Ed. 2d 882 p.932

5. Cited by:McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 114 S. Ct. 2568, 129 L. Ed. 2d 666, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 5085, 62 U.S.L.W. 4713, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 405, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5054, 94 D.A.R. 9257 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

512 U.S. 849 p.857114 S. Ct. 2568 p.2573129 L. Ed. 2d 666 p.675

6. Cited by:Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4824, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4755, 94 D.A.R. 8793 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

512 U.S. 477 p.501114 S. Ct. 2364 p.2380129 L. Ed. 2d 383 p.403

7. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3640, 59 U.S.L.W. 4789, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4800, 91 D.A.R. 7428 (1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

501 U.S. 722 p.760111 S. Ct. 2546 p.2570115 L. Ed. 2d 640 p.676

8. Cited by:Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 109 S. Ct. 2702, 105 L. Ed. 2d 598, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3130, 57 U.S.L.W. 4858, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39070, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 27 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

491 U.S. 701 p.724109 S. Ct. 2702 p.2716105 L. Ed. 2d 598 p.619

9. Cited by:Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 109 S. Ct. 1998, 104 L. Ed. 2d 582, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2522, 57 U.S.L.W. 4554 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

490 U.S. 536 p.539109 S. Ct. 1998 p.2001104 L. Ed. 2d 582 p.589

Page 15

10. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2867, 56 U.S.L.W. 4689 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:487 U.S. 131 p.158108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2317101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.151

Cited by:487 U.S. 131 p.139108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2307108 S. Ct. 2302 p.2308101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.138101 L. Ed. 2d 123 p.140

11. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1515, 55 U.S.L.W. 4457 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

Cited in Concurring Opinion at:481 U.S. 1 p.19481 U.S. 1 p.20107 S. Ct. 1519 p.1530107 S. Ct. 1519 p.153195 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.2195 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.22

Cited by:481 U.S. 1 p.7107 S. Ct. 1519 p.152495 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.13

12. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 106 S. Ct. 3220, 92 L. Ed. 2d 635, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 142, 54 U.S.L.W. 5084, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36205, 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 177 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

478 U.S. 788 p.80392 L. Ed. 2d 635 p.649

13. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 91 L. Ed. 2d 397, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 66, 54 U.S.L.W. 4820 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

477 U.S. 478 p.51991 L. Ed. 2d 397 p.429

14. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 65, 54 U.S.L.W. 4809 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

477 U.S. 436 p.464106 S. Ct. 2616 p.263291 L. Ed. 2d 364 p.388

Page 16

15. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Murray v. Carrier, 106 S. Ct. 2678 (U.S. 1986)

106 S. Ct. 2678 p.2680

16. Explained by:Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 106 S. Ct. 768, 88 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 51, 54 U.S.L.W. 4144 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

474 U.S. 518 p.526106 S. Ct. 768 p.77388 L. Ed. 2d 877 p.885

17. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S. Ct. 668, 88 L. Ed. 2d 677, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 44, 54 U.S.L.W. 4095 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

474 U.S. 344 p.359106 S. Ct. 668 p.67688 L. Ed. 2d 677 p.690

18. Cited by:Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S. Ct. 1938, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 1, 53 U.S.L.W. 4481 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

471 U.S. 261 p.272105 S. Ct. 1938 p.1944105 S. Ct. 1938 p.1945105 S. Ct. 1938 p.194985 L. Ed. 2d 254 p.26485 L. Ed. 2d 254 p.268

19. Cited by:Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S. Ct. 3457, 82 L. Ed. 2d 746, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 155, 52 U.S.L.W. 5179, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 168 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

468 U.S. 992 p.1012104 S. Ct. 3457 p.346982 L. Ed. 2d 746 p.765

20. Cited by:Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2924, 82 L. Ed. 2d 36, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 128, 52 U.S.L.W. 4916, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34449, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 15 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

468 U.S. 42 p.55104 S. Ct. 2924 p.293282 L. Ed. 2d 36 p.48

21. Cited by:Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 104 S. Ct. 2901, 82 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 126, 52 U.S.L.W. 4905 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

468 U.S. 1 p.10104 S. Ct. 2901 p.2907

Page 17

82 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.11

22. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 75, 52 U.S.L.W. 4525 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7



23. Cited by:McDonald v. West Branch, 466 U.S. 284, 104 S. Ct. 1799, 80 L. Ed. 2d 302, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 59, 52 U.S.L.W. 4457, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34290, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3646 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

466 U.S. 284 p.290104 S. Ct. 1799 p.180380 L. Ed. 2d 302 p.308

24. Cited by:Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 104 S. Ct. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 23, 52 U.S.L.W. 4151, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34069, 33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1345 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

465 U.S. 75 p.84104 S. Ct. 892 p.89779 L. Ed. 2d 56 p.63

25. Cited by:Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 103 S. Ct. 2368, 76 L. Ed. 2d 595, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 56, 51 U.S.L.W. 4736 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

462 U.S. 306 p.323103 S. Ct. 2368 p.237876 L. Ed. 2d 595 p.610

26. Explained by:Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 152, 51 U.S.L.W. 4424 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

461 U.S. 95 p.112103 S. Ct. 1660 p.167075 L. Ed. 2d 675 p.691

27. Cited by:Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 133, 50 U.S.L.W. 4731, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32821, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 12 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

Page 18

457 U.S. 496 p.503102 S. Ct. 2557 p.256173 L. Ed. 2d 172 p.179

28. Cited by:Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 S. Ct. 177, 70 L. Ed. 2d 271, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 6, 50 U.S.L.W. 4017 (1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

454 U.S. 100 p.124102 S. Ct. 177 p.19070 L. Ed. 2d 271 p.288

29. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 156, 49 U.S.L.W. 4015 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7



30. Distinguished by:County of Imperial v. Munoz, 449 U.S. 54, 101 S. Ct. 289, 66 L. Ed. 2d 258, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 154 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

449 U.S. 54 p.60101 S. Ct. 289 p.29366 L. Ed. 2d 258 p.265

31. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 65 L. Ed. 2d 555, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 51 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:448 U.S. 1 p.21100 S. Ct. 2502 p.2512100 S. Ct. 2502 p.251365 L. Ed. 2d 555 p.570


32. Cited by:Supreme Court v. Consumers Union of United States, 446 U.S. 719, 100 S. Ct. 1967, 64 L. Ed. 2d 641, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 108 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

446 U.S. 719 p.735100 S. Ct. 1967 p.1976

Page 19

64 L. Ed. 2d 641 p.656

33. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S. Ct. 1468, 64 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 120 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7



34. Cited by:Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 10 (1979)

443 U.S. 307 p.33699 S. Ct. 2781 p.279861 L. Ed. 2d 560 p.585

35. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 60 L. Ed. 2d 994, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 110 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7



36. Cited by:Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 99 S. Ct. 1905, 60 L. Ed. 2d 508, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 101 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

441 U.S. 600 p.66099 S. Ct. 1905 p.193860 L. Ed. 2d 508 p.549

37. Cited by:Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 67 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

440 U.S. 332 p.35499 S. Ct. 1139 p.115299 S. Ct. 1139 p.115359 L. Ed. 2d 358 p.375

Page 20

38. Cited by:Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 1991, 56 L. Ed. 2d 554, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 31 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

436 U.S. 584 p.59198 S. Ct. 1991 p.199598 S. Ct. 1991 p.199756 L. Ed. 2d 554 p.56156 L. Ed. 2d 554 p.563

39. Cited by:Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 69 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

435 U.S. 247 p.25398 S. Ct. 1042 p.104755 L. Ed. 2d 252 p.258

40. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 434 U.S. 12, 98 S. Ct. 76, 54 L. Ed. 2d 199, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 152 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

434 U.S. 12 p.2098 S. Ct. 76 p.8054 L. Ed. 2d 199 p.205

41. Explained by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 97 S. Ct. 2881, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1009, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 25, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P61497 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Explained by:433 U.S. 623 p.630433 U.S. 623 p.64397 S. Ct. 2881 p.288897 S. Ct. 2881 p.289353 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.101753 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.101853 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.1024


Cited by:97 S. Ct. 2881 p.288797 S. Ct. 2881 p.289153 L. Ed. 2d 1009 p.1016

42. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 53 L. Ed. 2d 594, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 135 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

433 U.S. 72 p.10697 S. Ct. 2497 p.251653 L. Ed. 2d 594 p.620

Page 21

43. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S. Ct. 1911, 52 L. Ed. 2d 486, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 96 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7


Cited by:431 U.S. 434 p.442431 U.S. 434 p.44597 S. Ct. 1911 p.191752 L. Ed. 2d 486 p.494

44. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 77, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 296 (1977)

430 U.S. 762 p.77897 S. Ct. 1459 p.146952 L. Ed. 2d 31 p.44

45. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 97 S. Ct. 1211, 51 L. Ed. 2d 376, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 61 (1977)

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:430 U.S. 327 p.34297 S. Ct. 1211 p.122097 S. Ct. 1211 p.122151 L. Ed. 2d 376 p.38851 L. Ed. 2d 376 p.389


46. Cited by:Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed. 2d 614, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 160, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10999, 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1040, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1586 (1976)

427 U.S. 445 p.45596 S. Ct. 2666 p.267149 L. Ed. 2d 614 p.621

47. Cited by:Bateman v. Arizona, 429 U.S. 1302, 97 S. Ct. 1, 50 L. Ed. 2d 32, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3425 (1976)

429 U.S. 1302 p.130497 S. Ct. 1 p.250 L. Ed. 2d 32 p.35

Page 22

48. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 2413, 49 L. Ed. 2d 276, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 188, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1 (1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

427 U.S. 1 p.3396 S. Ct. 2413 p.242949 L. Ed. 2d 276 p.297

49. Cited by:Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 42 (1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

423 U.S. 362 p.37996 S. Ct. 598 p.60846 L. Ed. 2d 561 p.574

50. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 45 L. Ed. 2d 223, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 7 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

422 U.S. 332 p.35695 S. Ct. 2281 p.229545 L. Ed. 2d 223 p.243

51. Cited by:Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 95 S. Ct. 1524, 44 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 57 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

421 U.S. 117 p.12495 S. Ct. 1524 p.153144 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.24

52. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 43 L. Ed. 2d 482, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 46 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7



53. Cited by:Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 95 S. Ct. 289, 42 L. Ed. 2d 249, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 157 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

419 U.S. 90 p.9595 S. Ct. 289 p.29342 L. Ed. 2d 249 p.255

54. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:

Page 23

O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 41 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Followed by:414 U.S. 488 p.49994 S. Ct. 669 p.67838 L. Ed. 2d 674 p.685


55. Cited by:Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, 413 U.S. 904, 93 S. Ct. 3027, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1015, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 1936 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

413 U.S. 904 p.90437 L. Ed. 2d 1015 p.1015

56. Cited by:Thompson v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 413 U.S. 903, 93 S. Ct. 3027, 93 S. Ct. 3028, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1014, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 1935 (1973)

57. Followed by:

Shoemaker v. Dwyer, 412 U.S. 902, 93 S. Ct. 2297, 36 L. Ed. 2d 967, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2331 (1973)36 L. Ed. 2d 967 p.967

58. Followed by:Joiner v. Dallas, 412 U.S. 902, 93 S. Ct. 2286, 36 L. Ed. 2d 967, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2333 (1973)

412 U.S. 902 p.90293 S. Ct. 2286 p.2286

59. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 93 S. Ct. 1785, 36 L. Ed. 2d 596, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 69, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1323 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

411 U.S. 693 p.72393 S. Ct. 1785 p.180393 S. Ct. 1785 p.180436 L. Ed. 2d 596 p.61736 L. Ed. 2d 596 p.618

60. Cited by:Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93 S. Ct. 1689, 36 L. Ed. 2d 488, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 74 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

411 U.S. 564 p.57393 S. Ct. 1689 p.169536 L. Ed. 2d 488 p.496

61. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 72 (1973)

Page 24

LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7411 U.S. 475 p.51693 S. Ct. 1827 p.185036 L. Ed. 2d 439 p.465

62. Explained by, Cited by:Cousins v. Wigoda, 409 U.S. 1201, 92 S. Ct. 2610, 34 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 1868 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Explained by:409 U.S. 1201 p.120592 S. Ct. 2610 p.261434 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.20

Cited by:34 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.19

63. Cited by:Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S. Ct. 1113, 31 L. Ed. 2d 424, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 153 (1972)

405 U.S. 538 p.56192 S. Ct. 1113 p.112631 L. Ed. 2d 424 p.440

1ST CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

64. Cited by:Colon-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Bonilla, 94 Fed. Appx. 847, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7985 (1st Cir. P.R. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

94 Fed. Appx. 847 p.848

65. Cited by:Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20799, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1290 (1st Cir. Mass. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

189 F.3d 52 p.68

66. Distinguished by, Followed by:Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 710 (1st Cir. P.R. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Distinguished by:988 F.2d 252 p.262

Followed by:988 F.2d 252 p.261

67. Cited by:In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15947, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P74130, 25 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 113 (1st Cir. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

938 F.2d 1467 p.1478

Page 25

68. Cited by:De Cosme v. Sea Containers, Ltd., 874 F.2d 66, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6415 (1st Cir. P.R. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

874 F.2d 66 p.68

69. Cited by:Garcia v. Bauza-Salas, 862 F.2d 905, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16491 (1st Cir. P.R. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

862 F.2d 905 p.907862 F.2d 905 p.909

70. Cited by:De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F.2d 1187, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25459 (1st Cir. P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

792 F.2d 1187 p.1188

71. Cited by:First Federal Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Greenwald, 591 F.2d 417, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17103 (1st Cir. Mass. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

591 F.2d 417 p.424

72. Cited by:Construction Aggregates Corp. v. Rivera de Vicenty, 573 F.2d 86, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12173 (1st Cir. P.R. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

573 F.2d 86 p.94

73. Cited by:Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970 (1st Cir. N.H. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

498 F.2d 1261 p.1264

1ST CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

74. Cited by:Kennedy v. Town of Billerica, 594 F. Supp. 2d 117, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6442 (D. Mass. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

594 F. Supp. 2d 117 p.124

75. Cited by:Vargas-Torres v. Toledo-Davila, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35655 (D.P.R. Apr. 30, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35655

76. Followed by, Cited by:Safe Haven Sober Houses, LLC v. City of Boston, 517 F. Supp. 2d 557, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74129 (D. Mass. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Page 26

Followed by:517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.568

Cited by:517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.562

77. Followed by:Rigby v. Damant, 486 F. Supp. 2d 222, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35365 (D. Mass. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

486 F. Supp. 2d 222 p.227

78. Cited by:Concepcion v. Municipality of Gurabo, 558 F. Supp. 2d 149, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97803 (D.P.R. 2007)

558 F. Supp. 2d 149 p.162

79. Cited by:Marcello v. State, 489 F. Supp. 2d 67, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24828 (D. Me. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

489 F. Supp. 2d 67 p.69

80. Cited by:Wade v. Brady, 460 F. Supp. 2d 226, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78605 (D. Mass. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

460 F. Supp. 2d 226 p.239

81. Cited by:Hernandez v. SmithKline Beecham Pharm., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72846 (D.P.R. June 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


82. Cited by:Robles-Ortiz v. Toledo, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37903 (D.P.R. Sept. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


83. Cited by:LaCedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Det. Facility, 334 F. Supp. 2d 114, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18182 (D.R.I. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

334 F. Supp. 2d 114 p.139

84. Cited by:United States v. Weeks, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20372 (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


85. Cited by:Rivera Perez v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 193 F.R.D. 43, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7355 (D.P.R. 2000)

Page 27

LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7193 F.R.D. 43 p.45

86. Cited by:George Lussier Enters. v. Subaru of New Eng., Inc., 2000 DNH 92, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5532 (D.N.H. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


87. Cited by:Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 946 F. Supp. 1067, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18438 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

946 F. Supp. 1067 p.1075

88. Cited by:South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. City of Boston, 875 F. Supp. 891, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 709 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

875 F. Supp. 891 p.907

89. Cited by:P.R.F., Inc. v. Philips Credit Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19696 (D.P.R. Dec. 21, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

90. Cited by:

SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica, 764 F. Supp. 7, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7243 (D.P.R. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

764 F. Supp. 7 p.8

91. Cited by:United States v. Puerto Rico, 764 F. Supp. 220, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6779 (D.P.R. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6

764 F. Supp. 220 p.227

92. Cited by:H. P. Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources, 764 F. Supp. 662, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6469 (D. Me. 1991)

764 F. Supp. 662 p.677

93. Cited by:H. P. Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources, 764 F. Supp. 662, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6580 (D. Me. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

94. Followed by, Cited by:

Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico for Dist. of Arecibo, 752 F. Supp. 1152, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16003 (D.P.R. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Followed by:752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1169752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1170

Page 28

Cited by:752 F. Supp. 1152 p.1171

95. Cited by:Lancellotti v. Fay, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15953 (D.R.I. Nov. 28, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

96. Cited by:

West v. Bristol, 712 F. Supp. 269, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4850 (D.R.I. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7712 F. Supp. 269 p.274

97. Cited by:Paris v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, 684 F. Supp. 764, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4389 (D.P.R. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

684 F. Supp. 764 p.767684 F. Supp. 764 p.768

98. Cited by:Gonzalez Martinez v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto Rico, 644 F. Supp. 364, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19708 (D.P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

644 F. Supp. 364 p.366

99. Followed by:Kercado Melendez v. Aponte Roque, 641 F. Supp. 1326 (D.P.R. 1986)

641 F. Supp. 1326 p.1329

100. Cited by:Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 608 F. Supp. 800, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22682 (D. Mass. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

608 F. Supp. 800 p.805

101. Cited by:Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 546 F. Supp. 1251, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15715 (D.P.R. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

546 F. Supp. 1251 p.1266

102. Cited by:Vista Resources, Inc. v. Connolly, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11210, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98627 (D. Mass. Mar. 16, 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

103. Cited by:

Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee, 435 F. Supp. 1063, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14939, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7871, 15 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 644, 46 A.L.R. Fed. 304 (D. Me. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

435 F. Supp. 1063 p.1083435 F. Supp. 1063 p.1084

104. Cited by:

Page 29

Members of Jamestown School Committee v. Schmidt, 427 F. Supp. 1338, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17022 (D.R.I. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

427 F. Supp. 1338 p.1344

105. Cited by:Ferrer Delgado v. Sylvia De Jesus, 440 F. Supp. 979, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12436 (D.P.R. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

440 F. Supp. 979 p.982

106. Cited by:Tapia-Tapia v. Division of Appeals of Superior Court, 429 F. Supp. 555, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15878 (D.P.R. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

429 F. Supp. 555 p.559

107. Cited by:Durkin v. Snow, 403 F. Supp. 18, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11538 (D.N.H. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

403 F. Supp. 18 p.20

108. Cited by:Oquendo v. Ortiz, 372 F. Supp. 79, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11692 (D.P.R. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6

372 F. Supp. 79 p.81

109. Cited by:Carver v. Hooker, 369 F. Supp. 204, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10851 (D.N.H. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

369 F. Supp. 204 p.217

110. Cited by:Federacion de Cooperativas de Credito v. Burgos, 366 F. Supp. 1321, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11912 (D.P.R. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

366 F. Supp. 1321 p.1326

111. Cited by:Trapper Brown Constr. Co. v. Electromech, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 105, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13647 (D.N.H. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

358 F. Supp. 105 p.107

112. Followed by:Glenwal Development Corp. v. Schmidt, 356 F. Supp. 67, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11109 (D.P.R. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

356 F. Supp. 67 p.71

113. Followed by:Schneider v. Margossian, 349 F. Supp. 741, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11887, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan)

Page 30

854, 18 A.L.R. Fed. 215 (D. Mass. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6349 F. Supp. 741 p.743

2ND CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

114. Cited by:Sterngass v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n, 260 Fed. Appx. 395, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1042 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008)

260 Fed. Appx. 395 p.395

115. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11187 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2006)

449 F.3d 305 p.358

116. Cited by:Bracey v. Bd. of Educ., 368 F.3d 108, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 761 (2d Cir. Conn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

368 F.3d 108 p.115

117. Cited by:Nussle v. Willette, 224 F.3d 95, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21431 (2d Cir. Conn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

224 F.3d 95 p.98

118. Cited by:Ivani Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 179 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

103 F.3d 257 p.262

119. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Yonkers Racing Corp. v. Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

858 F.2d 855 p.875

120. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22524 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

784 F.2d 1133 p.1140784 F.2d 1133 p.1144

121. Cited by:Giulini v. Blessing, 654 F.2d 189, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11754 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

654 F.2d 189 p.192

122. Cited by:

Page 31

Heimbach v. Lyons, 597 F.2d 344, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15126 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

597 F.2d 344 p.347

123. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Turpin v. Mailet, 579 F.2d 152, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 10868 (2d Cir. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

579 F.2d 152 p.174

124. Cited by:Dacey v. Dorsey, 568 F.2d 275, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13072 (2d Cir. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

568 F.2d 275 p.277

125. Cited by:Marshall v. Chase Manhattan Bank (Nat'l Asso.), 558 F.2d 680, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12333, 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1796 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

558 F.2d 680 p.683

126. Cited by:Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 519 F.2d 559, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14411, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10270, 10 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 956 (2d Cir. Conn. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

519 F.2d 559 p.570

127. Cited by:McCune v. Frank, 521 F.2d 1152, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13659, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10317 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

521 F.2d 1152 p.1156

128. Cited by:Bedrosian v. Mintz, 518 F.2d 396, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14084 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

518 F.2d 396 p.399

129. Cited by:J. v. Bar Asso. of Erie County, 515 F.2d 435, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15325 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

515 F.2d 435 p.437

130. Cited by:Wells v. Malloy, 510 F.2d 74, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16441 (2d Cir. Vt. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

510 F.2d 74 p.76

131. Cited by:Gajon Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly, 508 F.2d 1317, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974)

Page 32

LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7508 F.2d 1317 p.1319

132. Cited by:Blouin v. Dembitz, 489 F.2d 488, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6479 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

489 F.2d 488 p.490489 F.2d 488 p.491

133. Cited by:Citizens for a Better Environment, Inc. v. Nassau County, 488 F.2d 1353, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7014 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

488 F.2d 1353 p.1359

134. Cited by:Boraas v. Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11422 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

476 F.2d 806 p.811

135. Cited by:Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7624 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

467 F.2d 226 p.236

2ND CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

136. Cited by:Glatzer v. Barone, 614 F. Supp. 2d 450, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37099 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

614 F. Supp. 2d 450 p.457

137. Cited by:Sierra v. City of New York, 528 F. Supp. 2d 465, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

528 F. Supp. 2d 465 p.468

138. Cited by:Morpurgo v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98835 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


139. Cited by:Murawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72749 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

514 F. Supp. 2d 577 p.583

Page 33

140. Cited by:Baumgarten v. County of Suffolk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39229 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


141. Cited by:Bess v. Spitzer, 459 F. Supp. 2d 191, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83966 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

459 F. Supp. 2d 191 p.201

142. Cited by:Armstrong v. Real Estate Int'l, Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7630 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


143. Cited by:In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18693 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


144. Cited by:Levich v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist., 361 F. Supp. 2d 151, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26101 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

361 F. Supp. 2d 151 p.162

145. Cited by:Mussmann v. Scalera, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17694 (N.D.N.Y Oct. 6, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


146. Cited by:Harris v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 202 F. Supp. 2d 143, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7179 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

202 F. Supp. 2d 143 p.153

147. Cited by:Pathways, Inc. v. Dunne, 172 F. Supp. 2d 357, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17345 (D. Conn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

172 F. Supp. 2d 357 p.362

148. Cited by:Pappas v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d 433, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15590 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

118 F. Supp. 2d 433 p.439

149. Followed by:

Page 34

Arby's Inc. v. B & R Mgmt. & Leasing Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13378 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 31, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


150. Cited by:Bridgeport Machs, Inc. v. Alamo Iron Works, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 209, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19156 (D. Conn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

76 F. Supp. 2d 209 p.212

151. Cited by:Xuong Trieu v. Urbach, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10172 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


152. Cited by:Ali v. New York City Transit Auth., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19351 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


153. Cited by:Burks v. Dence, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12707 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 20, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

154. Cited by:

Miller v. Silbermann, 951 F. Supp. 485, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

951 F. Supp. 485 p.494

155. Cited by:Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16120 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

156. Cited by:

Davidson v. Garry, 956 F. Supp. 265, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20382 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

956 F. Supp. 265 p.268

157. Cited by:Smith v. Gribetz, 887 F. Supp. 583, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7547 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

887 F. Supp. 583 p.586

158. Cited by:Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F. Supp. 99, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7794 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

880 F. Supp. 99 p.130

Page 35

159. Cited by:Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co. v. Renstrom, 831 F. Supp. 1088, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13420 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

831 F. Supp. 1088 p.1089

160. Cited by:Ohta v. Muraski, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693 (D. Conn. Aug. 19, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

161. Cited by:

Oxford House v. City of Albany, 819 F. Supp. 1168, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5061, 1 Am. Disabilities Dec. 893 (N.D.N.Y 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

819 F. Supp. 1168 p.1172

162. Cited by:Carr v. Axelrod, 798 F. Supp. 168, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10582 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

798 F. Supp. 168 p.175

163. Cited by:C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, 770 F. Supp. 848, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11187, 1991-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69591 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

770 F. Supp. 848 p.853

164. Cited by:In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 134 F.R.D. 32, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18126 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

134 F.R.D. 32 p.38

165. Cited by:In re Joint Eastern & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 120 B.R. 648, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17032, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 176 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

120 B.R. 648 p.657

166. Cited by:Medeiros v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10393 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

167. Cited by:

Rosendale v. Lankenau Kovner & Bickford, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14491 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

168. Cited by:

McNeill v. New York City Housing Authority, 719 F. Supp. 233, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9585 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

719 F. Supp. 233 p.256

169. Cited by:First City Federal Sav. Bank v. Dennis, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5212 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 1989) LexisNexis

Page 36

Headnotes HN4

170. Cited by:Burmah Oil Tankers, Ltd. v. Trisun Tankers, Ltd., 687 F. Supp. 897, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5622 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

687 F. Supp. 897 p.899

171. Cited by:Okure v. Owens, 625 F. Supp. 1568, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30154 (N.D.N.Y 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7

625 F. Supp. 1568 p.1571

172. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 626 F. Supp. 250, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30601 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

626 F. Supp. 250 p.259

173. Cited by:Wilson v. Uttaro, 623 F. Supp. 1158, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12759 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

623 F. Supp. 1158 p.1160

174. Cited by:Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster, P.C. v. Dearie, 613 F. Supp. 278, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

613 F. Supp. 278 p.280

175. Cited by:MAI BASIC FOUR, INC. v. 820 SECOND AVE. ASSOCS., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17913, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P66684 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

176. Cited by:

Breads v. Ellis, 607 F. Supp. 1420, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20019 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

607 F. Supp. 1420 p.1421

177. Cited by:Port Chester v. Port Chester Yacht Club, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 663, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

598 F. Supp. 663 p.666

178. Cited by:Schiavone Constr. Co. v. New York City Transit Authority, 593 F. Supp. 1257, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23339 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

593 F. Supp. 1257 p.1258

179. Cited by:

Page 37

Trans World Corp. v. Odyssey Partners, 561 F. Supp. 1311, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18344, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99136 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

561 F. Supp. 1311 p.1314

180. Followed by:Ambiance, Inc. v. Commodore General Ins. Co., 553 F. Supp. 285, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9856 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

553 F. Supp. 285 p.288

181. Cited by:Companion Life Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 547 F. Supp. 836, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15021 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

547 F. Supp. 836 p.838

182. Cited by:Cayuga Indian Nation v. Fox, 544 F. Supp. 542, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13748 (N.D.N.Y 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

544 F. Supp. 542 p.550

183. Cited by:America's Best Family Showplace Corp. v. New York Dep't of Bldgs., 530 F. Supp. 607, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11554 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

530 F. Supp. 607 p.611

184. Cited by:Howard v. Koch, 575 F. Supp. 1299, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17607 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

575 F. Supp. 1299 p.1303

185. Cited by:GARRETT v. CERBONE, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15683 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

186. Cited by:

SAMAD ALI v. ALTMAN, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14607 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

187. Cited by:

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, etc., 515 F. Supp. 456, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12476 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

515 F. Supp. 456 p.459

188. Cited by:Angelilli v. Murphy, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9761 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

189. Explained by:

United Transp. Union v. Long Island Rail Road & Metropolitan Transp. Asso., 509 F. Supp. 1300, 1980

Page 38

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9122, 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3069 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

509 F. Supp. 1300 p.1307

190. Cited by:HURLEY v. WARD, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8630 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

191. Cited by:

Wiesenfeld v. New York, 474 F. Supp. 1141, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11177 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

474 F. Supp. 1141 p.1144

192. Cited by:Brennick v. Hynes, 471 F. Supp. 863, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12537 (N.D.N.Y 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

471 F. Supp. 863 p.867

193. Cited by:BOARD OF EDUC. OF NEW YORK v. CALIFANO, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17757 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

194. Cited by:

Cartledge v. Miller, 457 F. Supp. 1146, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15717 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

457 F. Supp. 1146 p.1151457 F. Supp. 1146 p.1152

195. Cited by:City Partners, Ltd. v. Jamaica Sav. Bank, 454 F. Supp. 1269, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16610 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

454 F. Supp. 1269 p.1273

196. Cited by:Aristocrat Health Club, Inc. v. Chaucer, 451 F. Supp. 210, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17872 (D. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

451 F. Supp. 210 p.214

197. Distinguished by:Williams v. Sclafani, 444 F. Supp. 906, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19979 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

444 F. Supp. 906 p.917

198. Cited by:Black Jack Distributors, Inc. v. Beame, 433 F. Supp. 1297, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15312, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1641 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1303433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1304

Page 39

199. Cited by:Maltais v. United States, 439 F. Supp. 540, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13394, 25 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 923 (N.D.N.Y 1977)

439 F. Supp. 540 p.547

200. Cited by:NLRB v. New York, 436 F. Supp. 335, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14366, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2081, 82 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10131 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

436 F. Supp. 335 p.339

201. Cited by:NLRB v. Comm. of Interns & Residents, 426 F. Supp. 438, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17604, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2739, 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P13060 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

426 F. Supp. 438 p.445

202. Cited by:Briere v. Agway, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 654, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17962 (D. Vt. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

425 F. Supp. 654 p.657

203. Cited by:GIGANTE v. KEENAN, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

204. Explained by:

Gras v. Stevens, 415 F. Supp. 1148, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15224 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

415 F. Supp. 1148 p.1154

205. Cited by:New Haven Tenants' Representative Council, Inc. v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 390 F. Supp. 831, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14004 (D. Conn. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

390 F. Supp. 831 p.832

206. Cited by:Vail v. Quinlan, 387 F. Supp. 630, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14384 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

387 F. Supp. 630 p.637

207. Cited by:Schero v. Merrola, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7777, 1974 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75166 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN7

208. Cited by:

Abbit v. Bernier, 387 F. Supp. 57, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11419 (D. Conn. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

387 F. Supp. 57 p.59

Page 40

209. Cited by:Hartford Consumer Activists Asso. v. Hausman, 381 F. Supp. 1275, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7060 (D. Conn. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

381 F. Supp. 1275 p.1280

210. Cited by:Sugar v. Curtis Circulation Co., 377 F. Supp. 1055, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

377 F. Supp. 1055 p.1059

211. Cited by:Wallace v. McDonald, 369 F. Supp. 180, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14759 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

369 F. Supp. 180 p.186369 F. Supp. 180 p.187

212. Cited by:Fitzgerald v. Cawley, 368 F. Supp. 677, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10688 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

368 F. Supp. 677 p.680

213. Cited by:United States v. New Haven, 367 F. Supp. 1338, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14808 (D. Conn. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

367 F. Supp. 1338 p.1341

214. Cited by:Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, 364 F. Supp. 478, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12004, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P8943 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

364 F. Supp. 478 p.482

215. Cited by:Thistlethwaite v. New York, 362 F. Supp. 88, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12551 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

362 F. Supp. 88 p.93

216. Cited by:Horodner v. Cahn, 360 F. Supp. 602, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13157 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

360 F. Supp. 602 p.605

217. Cited by:Caramico v. Romney, 390 F. Supp. 210, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11271 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

390 F. Supp. 210 p.215

Page 41

218. Followed by:Boraas v. Belle Terre, 367 F. Supp. 136, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11903 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

367 F. Supp. 136 p.140367 F. Supp. 136 p.141

219. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Silverman v. Browning, 359 F. Supp. 173, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10697 (D. Conn. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:359 F. Supp. 173 p.181

Cited by:359 F. Supp. 173 p.176

220. Cited by:Turner v. Baxley, 354 F. Supp. 963, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10492 (D. Vt. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

354 F. Supp. 963 p.970

221. Cited by:Russell v. Monroe, 351 F. Supp. 115, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11214 (W.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

351 F. Supp. 115 p.117

222. Followed by:1487 Amusement Corp. v. Redlich, 350 F. Supp. 822, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11268 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

350 F. Supp. 822 p.827

223. Cited by:Ajello v. Schaffer, 349 F. Supp. 1168, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11897 (D. Conn. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7

349 F. Supp. 1168 p.1171349 F. Supp. 1168 p.1172

224. Distinguished by:Halstead, Fauss & Potter, Inc. v. Murphy, 348 F. Supp. 380, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12699 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

348 F. Supp. 380 p.382

3RD CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

225. Followed by:Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed. Appx. 155, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16235 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

287 Fed. Appx. 155 p.158

Page 42

226. Cited by:McLaughlin v. Fisher, 277 Fed. Appx. 207, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9682, 184 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2342 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

277 Fed. Appx. 207 p.218

227. Cited by:In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 369 F.3d 293, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10231, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17005 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

369 F.3d 293 p.306

228. Cited by:Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 26217 (3d Cir. N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

159 F.3d 120 p.125

229. Cited by:In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 134 F.3d 133, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 791 (3d Cir. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

134 F.3d 133 p.144

230. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20308 (3d Cir. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

32 F.3d 785 p.802

231. Followed by, Cited by:1975 Salaried Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15095, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1971, 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10268 (3d Cir. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Followed by:968 F.2d 401 p.407968 F.2d 401 p.408

Cited by:968 F.2d 401 p.409

232. Cited by:Ivy Club v. Edwards, 943 F.2d 270, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19215 (3d Cir. N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

943 F.2d 270 p.277943 F.2d 270 p.278

233. Cited by:United States Steel Corp. Plan for Employee Ins. Ben. v. Musisko, 885 F.2d 1170, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14123, 11 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1719 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

885 F.2d 1170 p.1173

Page 43

885 F.2d 1170 p.1176

234. Cited by:Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13850 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

885 F.2d 101 p.109

235. Cited by:Knoll v. Springfield Township Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 137, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31001, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P33309, 30 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1383, 37 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 814 (3d Cir. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

699 F.2d 137 p.142

236. Cited by:In re Davis, 691 F.2d 176, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24637, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1048, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P68885, 7 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 861 (3d Cir. Del. 1982)

691 F.2d 176 p.178

237. Cited by:In re Davis (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

238. Cited by:

Kennecott Corp. v. Smith, 637 F.2d 181, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11332, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97731 (3d Cir. N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

637 F.2d 181 p.186

239. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Johnson v. Kelly, 583 F.2d 1242, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8715 (3d Cir. Pa. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:583 F.2d 1242 p.1253

Cited by:583 F.2d 1242 p.1250

240. Followed by, Cited by:New Jersey Education Asso. v. Burke, 579 F.2d 764, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11364 (3d Cir. N.J. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


Cited by:579 F.2d 764 p.767579 F.2d 764 p.770

241. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11846 (3d Cir. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6

Page 44

564 F.2d 1018 p.1042

242. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:New Jersey v. Chesimard, 555 F.2d 63, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14385 (3d Cir. N.J. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

555 F.2d 63 p.75

243. Cited by:In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation, 521 F.2d 775, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13311, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 374 (3d Cir. Pa. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

521 F.2d 775 p.781

244. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5401 (3d Cir. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

507 F.2d 119 p.130

245. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Helfant v. Kugler, 500 F.2d 1188, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7751 (3d Cir. N.J. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7


Cited by:500 F.2d 1188 p.1195

246. Cited by:Jennings v. Boenning & Co., 482 F.2d 1128, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8760, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94072 (3d Cir. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

482 F.2d 1128 p.1130

247. Cited by:Smith v. Spina, 477 F.2d 1140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10321 (3d Cir. N.J. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

477 F.2d 1140 p.1144

248. Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Conover v. Montemuro, 477 F.2d 1073, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6182 (3d Cir. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Explained by:477 F.2d 1073 p.1077477 F.2d 1073 p.1080

Cited in Concurring Opinion at:477 F.2d 1073 p.1083477 F.2d 1073 p.1096

Cited by:477 F.2d 1073 p.1079

Page 45

249. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Mitchell v. Fiore, 470 F.2d 1149, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6321, 69 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P32811, 73 Labor Relations N.L.R.B. (P-H) P14412, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1034 (3d Cir. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

470 F.2d 1149 p.1158

3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

250. Cited by:Cradle of Liberty Council, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107932 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107932

251. Cited by:Dye v. Fed. Home Loans Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108654 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108654

252. Followed by:Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59000 (D. Del. July 9, 2009)


253. Followed by:Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53214 (D. Del. June 24, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


254. Cited by:Davis Int'l, LLC v. New Start Group Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40895 (D. Del. May 13, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


255. Cited by:Miller v. Skumanick, 605 F. Supp. 2d 634, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27275 (M.D. Pa. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

605 F. Supp. 2d 634 p.641

256. Cited by:Binsack v. Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney's Office, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


257. Cited by:Leer Elec., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103543 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Page 46

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103543

258. Followed by:Harris v. Hershey Med. Ctr., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102514 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102514

259. Followed by:Williams v. Gov't of the V.I., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99648, 50 V.I. 852 (2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

50 V.I. 852 p.860

260. Cited by:J.T.M. v. Richman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110484 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110484

261. Cited by:Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88544 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


262. Cited by:Shipley v. New Castle County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76156 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


263. Followed by:Joyce v. City of Sea Isle City, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25880 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2008)


264. Cited by:Zaklama v. City of Bayonne, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1194 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


265. Cited by:Valle v. Etemad, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3778 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


266. Cited by:Huntley v. City of Johnstown, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5686 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


267. Cited by:

Page 47

In re J.E. Brenneman Co., 277 F. Supp. 2d 518, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12196, 2003 A.M.C. 1759 (E.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

277 F. Supp. 2d 518 p.521

268. Cited by:Lui v. Comm'n on Adult Entm't Establishments, 213 F.R.D. 166, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3459 (D. Del. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

213 F.R.D. 166 p.171

269. Cited by:Daniel Boone Area Sch. Dist. v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 414, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2360 (W.D. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

187 F. Supp. 2d 414 p.417187 F. Supp. 2d 414 p.418

270. Cited by:Concepcion v. Morton, 125 F. Supp. 2d 111, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20042 (D.N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

125 F. Supp. 2d 111 p.120

271. Cited by:Carlino v. Gloucester City High Sch., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15949 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

57 F. Supp. 2d 1 p.9

272. Cited by:Alan A. v. Verniero, 970 F. Supp. 1153, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10433 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

970 F. Supp. 1153 p.1169

273. Cited by:Government Guar. Fund of Fin. v. Hyatt Corp., 955 F. Supp. 441, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1123, 35 V.I. 356 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

955 F. Supp. 441 p.465

274. Cited by:In re GMC Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17510 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

275. Cited by:

Bledsoe v. Fulton Bank, 940 F. Supp. 804, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14322 (E.D. Pa. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

940 F. Supp. 804 p.807940 F. Supp. 804 p.809

276. Cited by:McKie v. Brod, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3664 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Page 48

277. Cited by:

Regis Ins. Co. v. Doughboy Recreational, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1166 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

278. Cited by:

Kessler Inst. for Rehabilitation v. Mayor of Essex Fells, 876 F. Supp. 641, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1335, 8 Am. Disabilities Dec. 837 (D.N.J. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

876 F. Supp. 641 p.654

279. Cited by:Dunkel v. Dunkel, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2035 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

280. Cited by:

Carlough v. Amchem Prods., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6027, 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70238 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

281. Cited by:

Independence Public Media, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Com., 813 F. Supp. 335, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2945 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

813 F. Supp. 335 p.341

282. Cited by:Exxon Corp. v. Stewart, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22639 (D.N.J. June 30, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

283. Cited by:

Hammond v. Creative Financial Planning Organization, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 1244, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3357 (E.D. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

800 F. Supp. 1244 p.1249

284. Cited by:Clark v. Court of Common Pleas, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14695 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

285. Cited by:

Chambers Dev. Co. v. North Huntingdon, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19982 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

286. Followed by, Cited by:

Oxford House-Evergreen v. Plainfield, 769 F. Supp. 1329, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10645 (D.N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Followed by:769 F. Supp. 1329 p.1341

Cited by:769 F. Supp. 1329 p.1339

287. Cited by:Avraham v. Zaffarano, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10373 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Page 49

288. Cited by:

In re Asbestos Sch. Litig., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5142 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

289. Cited by:

Smith v. Baldwin, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12215 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

290. Cited by:Sherman v. Blum, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1650 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

291. Cited by:

Smith v. Wood, 649 F. Supp. 901, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20305 (E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

649 F. Supp. 901 p.903

292. Cited by:Texaco, Inc. v. Melso, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21077, 1986-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67283 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

293. Cited by:

Shipley v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 619 F. Supp. 421, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16494 (D. Del. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

619 F. Supp. 421 p.433

294. Cited by:MIMMS v. FRAME, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19628 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

295. Followed by:

Bonser v. New Jersey, 605 F. Supp. 1227, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21162, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21163, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1496 (D.N.J. 1985)

605 F. Supp. 1227 p.1230

296. Cited by:Bonser v. New Jersey, 605 F. Supp. 1227, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21162, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1496 (D.N.J. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

297. Cited by:

Roodveldt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 770, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752 (E.D. Pa. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

585 F. Supp. 770 p.783

298. Cited by:Coleman v. Stanziani, 570 F. Supp. 679, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13788 (E.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

570 F. Supp. 679 p.685

299. Cited by:Carpenter v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 508 F. Supp. 148, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10367, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P31653, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1298 (E.D. Pa. 1981)

Page 50

LexisNexis Headnotes HN6508 F. Supp. 148 p.149

300. Cited by:Adams v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 502 F. Supp. 1282, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16372 (M.D. Pa. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

502 F. Supp. 1282 p.1286

301. Cited by:Humphreys v. Burke, 502 F. Supp. 449, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15125 (D.N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

502 F. Supp. 449 p.455

302. Cited by:Shirey v. Bensalem Township, 501 F. Supp. 1138, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15333 (E.D. Pa. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7

501 F. Supp. 1138 p.1145

303. Cited by:New Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery of Bible Presbyterian Church v. New Jersey State Board of Higher Education, 482 F. Supp. 968, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10755 (D.N.J. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

482 F. Supp. 968 p.977

304. Cited by:United States ex rel. Frisbee v. Rapone, 449 F. Supp. 509, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18139 (E.D. Pa. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

449 F. Supp. 509 p.511

305. Cited by:Greenspan v. Klein, 442 F. Supp. 860, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12191 (D.N.J. 1977)

442 F. Supp. 860 p.866

306. Cited by:Garrett v. Hoffman, 441 F. Supp. 1151, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13166 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

441 F. Supp. 1151 p.1158

307. Cited by:Clark v. Lutcher, 436 F. Supp. 1266, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14245 (M.D. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

436 F. Supp. 1266 p.1270

308. Cited by:Johnson v. Kelly, 436 F. Supp. 155, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15037 (E.D. Pa. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6

436 F. Supp. 155 p.162

Page 51

436 F. Supp. 155 p.167

309. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Rite Aid Corp. v. Board of Pharmacy, 421 F. Supp. 1161, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13245 (D.N.J. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

421 F. Supp. 1161 p.1181

310. Explained by:Baker v. Gotz, 415 F. Supp. 1243, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14769 (D. Del. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

415 F. Supp. 1243 p.1247415 F. Supp. 1243 p.1248

311. Cited by:Matherly v. Lamb, 414 F. Supp. 364, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15024 (E.D. Pa. 1976)

414 F. Supp. 364 p.366

312. Cited by:Sorger v. Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, 401 F. Supp. 348, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15989 (E.D. Pa. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

401 F. Supp. 348 p.353

313. Cited by:Classic Distributors, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 387 F. Supp. 829, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6229 (M.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

387 F. Supp. 829 p.835

314. Cited by:Reed v. Thomas, 385 F. Supp. 266, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6673 (W.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

385 F. Supp. 266 p.268

315. Cited by:Siegel v. Salisbury, 379 F. Supp. 317, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 (W.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

379 F. Supp. 317 p.321

316. Cited by:Killian v. Philadelphia, 377 F. Supp. 988, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7982 (E.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

377 F. Supp. 988 p.991

317. Cited by:United States v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Bd., 377 F. Supp. 545, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8102 (M.D. Pa. 1974)

377 F. Supp. 545 p.549

Page 52

318. Cited by:Salvati v. Dale, 364 F. Supp. 691, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11612 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

364 F. Supp. 691 p.704

319. Cited by:Kadash v. Williamsport, 362 F. Supp. 1343, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12927 (M.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

362 F. Supp. 1343 p.1346

320. Cited by:Freeman & Bass, P. A. v. New Jersey Com. of Investigation, 359 F. Supp. 1053, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14131 (D.N.J. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

359 F. Supp. 1053 p.1061

321. Cited by:Meadors v. Walter, 58 F.R.D. 634, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14616, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 635 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

58 F.R.D. 634 p.636

322. Cited by:Jennings v. Boenning & Co., 352 F. Supp. 1000, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11367 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

352 F. Supp. 1000 p.1004

323. Cited by:Wright v. Specter, 352 F. Supp. 317, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10672 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

352 F. Supp. 317 p.319

324. Cited by:Philadelphia World Hockey Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 457, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11835 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

351 F. Supp. 457 p.459

325. Explained by:Mertes v. Mertes, 350 F. Supp. 472, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11307 (D. Del. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

350 F. Supp. 472 p.475

3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

326. Cited by:Ernst & Young, LLP v. Reilly (In re Earned Capital Corp.), 393 B.R. 362, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2279, 50 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 149 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Page 53

393 B.R. 362 p.369

327. Cited by:In re Fidelity America Financial Corp., 63 B.R. 995, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5423 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

63 B.R. 995 p.997

328. Cited by:In re Fidelity America Financial Corp., 53 B.R. 930, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5126 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

53 B.R. 930 p.933

4TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

329. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7050, 32 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1769 (4th Cir. S.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Cited in Concurring Opinion at:364 F.3d 521 p.532

Cited by:364 F.3d 521 p.531

330. Cited by:Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26480, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1982, 95 TNT 195-8 (4th Cir. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

65 F.3d 1126 p.113065 F.3d 1126 p.1131

331. Cited by:Dionne v. Mayor of Baltimore, 40 F.3d 677, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33050 (4th Cir. Md. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

40 F.3d 677 p.684

332. Cited by:Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3053, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2649, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10628 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

926 F.2d 353 p.361

333. Cited by:LCS Servs., Inc. v. Hamrick, 925 F.2d 745, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2046, 32 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1921 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

925 F.2d 745 p.749

334. Cited by:Bluefield Community Hospital, Inc. v. Anziulewicz, 737 F.2d 405, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21384, 1984-2

Page 54

Trade Cas. (CCH) P66066 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7737 F.2d 405 p.408

335. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926 (4th Cir. Va. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

717 F.2d 888 p.902

336. Cited by:Allen v. Burke, 690 F.2d 376, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415 (4th Cir. Va. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

690 F.2d 376 p.379

337. Cited by:Swann v. Gastonia Housing Authority, 675 F.2d 1342, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20298 (4th Cir. N.C. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

675 F.2d 1342 p.1347

338. Explained by:North v. Budig, 637 F.2d 246, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21126 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

637 F.2d 246 p.247

339. Cited by:Usery v. Charleston County School Dist., 558 F.2d 1169, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12312, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7741, 17 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 597, 82 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33554, 77 Labor Relations N.L.R.B. (P-H) P14390, 23 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 374 (4th Cir. S.C. 1977)

558 F.2d 1169 p.1171

340. Cited by:Rimmer v. Fayetteville Police Dep't, 567 F.2d 273, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5548 (4th Cir. N.C. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

567 F.2d 273 p.275

341. Cited by:Sumey v. Martinsville, 529 F.2d 517, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12643 (4th Cir. Va. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

342. Cited by:

Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11447 (4th Cir. S.C. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

528 F.2d 811 p.814

343. Cited by:Moye v. Raleigh, 503 F.2d 631, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6675 (4th Cir. N.C. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

503 F.2d 631 p.633

Page 55

344. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Joseph v. Blair, 488 F.2d 403, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7729 (4th Cir. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

488 F.2d 403 p.405

345. Cited by:Lynch v. Snepp, 472 F.2d 769, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11990 (4th Cir. N.C. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

472 F.2d 769 p.771

4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

346. Cited by:Westfall v. West Virginia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98480 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 14, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6


347. Cited by:Edmond v. Ozmint, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89248 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


348. Cited by:Ward v. Simpers, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42172 (D. Md. May 29, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


349. Followed by:Green v. City of Welch, 467 F. Supp. 2d 656, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93124 (S.D. W. Va. 2006)

467 F. Supp. 2d 656 p.664

350. Cited by:Bryan v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35650 (M.D.N.C. May 31, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


351. Cited by:FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11352, 2005-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74813 (D. Md. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

373 F. Supp. 2d 558 p.565

352. Cited by:Sherman v. Jones, 258 F. Supp. 2d 440, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6896 (E.D. Va. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

258 F. Supp. 2d 440 p.441

Page 56

353. Cited by:Henderson Amusement v. Good, 172 F. Supp. 2d 751, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21117 (W.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 p.757

354. Cited by:Banks v. North Carolina ex rel. North Carolina State Bar, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5037 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

355. Cited by:

Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 869 F. Supp. 398, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17699 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

869 F. Supp. 398 p.404869 F. Supp. 398 p.405

356. Cited by:Medigen of Kentucky, Inc. v. Public Service Com., 787 F. Supp. 602, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3245 (S.D. W. Va. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

787 F. Supp. 602 p.610

357. Cited by:United States v. Byars, 762 F. Supp. 1235, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5520 (E.D. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

762 F. Supp. 1235 p.1237

358. Cited by:W.W. Enterprise, Inc. v. Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1326, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17351, 1991-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69326, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1219 (W.D.N.C. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

753 F. Supp. 1326 p.1328

359. Cited by:Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. Cassilly, 729 F. Supp. 1106, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1190 (D. Md. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

729 F. Supp. 1106 p.1108

360. Cited by:Lopez v. Preferred Sav. Bank, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18066 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

361. Cited by:

Skeeter v. Norfolk, 681 F. Supp. 1149, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38088, 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1481 (E.D. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

681 F. Supp. 1149 p.1159

362. Cited by:Doe v. Rockingham County School Bd., 658 F. Supp. 403, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3250 (W.D. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

Page 57

658 F. Supp. 403 p.410

363. Cited by:Widdowson v. Taylor, 44 B.R. 548, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 655, 11 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1028 (D. Md. 1984)

44 B.R. 548 p.549

364. Cited by:In re Taylor, 44 B.R. 548, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23322, 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 655, 11 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1028 (D. Md. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

365. Cited by:

Lee v. Winston, 551 F. Supp. 247, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (E.D. Va. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

366. Cited by:

Lee v. Winston, 551 F. Supp. 247, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15497, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (E.D. Va. 1982)

551 F. Supp. 247 p.255

367. Cited by:Harman v. Daniels, 525 F. Supp. 798, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15579 (W.D. Va. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

525 F. Supp. 798 p.800

368. Cited by:Bennett v. Reed, 534 F. Supp. 83, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17524 (E.D.N.C. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

534 F. Supp. 83 p.88

369. Followed by:Board of Supervisors v. Circuit Court of Dickenson County, 500 F. Supp. 212, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17363, 15 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1311, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20146 (W.D. Va. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

500 F. Supp. 212 p.213

370. Cited by:Chertkof v. Baltimore, 497 F. Supp. 1252, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13815 (D. Md. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

497 F. Supp. 1252 p.1256

371. Cited by:Hopkins v. Cobb, 466 F. Supp. 1212, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14460 (D.S.C. 1979)

466 F. Supp. 1212 p.1215

372. Cited by:Greene v. Virginia State Bar Asso., 411 F. Supp. 512, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15695 (E.D. Va. 1976)

Page 58

LexisNexis Headnotes HN5411 F. Supp. 512 p.517

373. Cited by:Fitchette v. Collins, 402 F. Supp. 147, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15771 (D. Md. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

402 F. Supp. 147 p.152

374. Cited by:Becker v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15581, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P61527 (D. Md. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

375. Cited by:

Cottrell v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 363 F. Supp. 692, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432 (E.D. Va. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

363 F. Supp. 692 p.695

376. Cited by:Lynch v. Snepp, 350 F. Supp. 1134, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11122 (W.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

350 F. Supp. 1134 p.1139

377. Cited by:Wood v. Moore, 350 F. Supp. 29, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11333 (W.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

350 F. Supp. 29 p.31

378. Cited by:Shaffer v. Holbrook, 346 F. Supp. 762, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12494 (S.D. W. Va. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

346 F. Supp. 762 p.764

4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

379. Cited by:In re Seidelman, 57 B.R. 149, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6894, 14 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1 (Bankr. D. Md. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

57 B.R. 149 p.153


380. Cited by:Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14326 (5th Cir. La. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

534 F.3d 487 p.494

381. Cited by:

Page 59

Regions Bank v. Rivet, 224 F.3d 483, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21159, 44 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1351 (5th Cir. La. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

224 F.3d 483 p.489

382. Cited by:American Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 202 F.3d 788, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276 (5th Cir. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

202 F.3d 788 p.802

383. Cited by:Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (5th Cir. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

44 F.3d 362 p.369

384. Cited by:Total Plan Services, Inc. v. Texas Retailers Ass'n, 925 F.2d 142, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3460, 13 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1706 (5th Cir. Tex. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

925 F.2d 142 p.144

385. Cited by:Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1211, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1293 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

894 F.2d 127 p.132

386. Distinguished by:Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17750 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

862 F.2d 491 p.503

387. Cited by:United States v. Lemaire, 826 F.2d 387, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12081 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

826 F.2d 387 p.388

388. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 820 F.2d 1406, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585, 1988 A.M.C. 1202 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7



389. Cited by:Regional Properties, Inc. v. Financial & Real Estate Consulting Co., 678 F.2d 552, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18737, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98718 (5th Cir. Tex. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

678 F.2d 552 p.566

Page 60

390. Cited by:Southern Jam, Inc. v. Robinson, 675 F.2d 94, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19476 (5th Cir. Ga. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

675 F.2d 94 p.96

391. Followed by:Gresham Park Community Organization v. Howell, 652 F.2d 1227, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18616 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

652 F.2d 1227 p.1234

392. Cited by:State Fair of Texas v. United States Consumer Prod. & Safety Comm'n, 650 F.2d 1324, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11853 (5th Cir. Tex. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

650 F.2d 1324 p.1333

393. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F.2d 900, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20781, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P31526, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1373 (5th Cir. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

634 F.2d 900 p.915634 F.2d 900 p.923

394. Cited by:Wilson v. Thompson, 638 F.2d 799, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19752 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

638 F.2d 799 p.801

395. Cited by:Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F.2d 943, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21016 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

636 F.2d 943 p.944

396. Explained by:Piambino v. Bailey, 610 F.2d 1306, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20757, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 370, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97275 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

610 F.2d 1306 p.1330610 F.2d 1306 p.1331610 F.2d 1306 p.1332

397. Cited by:Henry v. First Nat'l Bank, 595 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14550 (5th Cir. Miss. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

595 F.2d 291 p.298595 F.2d 291 p.300

Page 61

398. Cited by:Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15032 (5th Cir. Ga. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

593 F.2d 1375 p.1383

399. Cited by:Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12266 (5th Cir. Miss. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

569 F.2d 219 p.225

400. Cited by:Beecher v. Baxley, 549 F.2d 974, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14064 (5th Cir. Ala. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN7

549 F.2d 974 p.976

401. Cited by:Kolski v. Watkins, 544 F.2d 762, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10725 (5th Cir. Fla. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

544 F.2d 762 p.766

402. Cited by:Gonzalez v. Southern Methodist University, 536 F.2d 1071, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7612 (5th Cir. Tex. 1976)

536 F.2d 1071 p.1072

403. Cited by:Carter v. Ogden Corp., 524 F.2d 74, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11647, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60665 (5th Cir. La. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

524 F.2d 74 p.76

404. Cited by:International Asso. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 512 F.2d 125, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14920, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2154, 76 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10848 (5th Cir. Ga. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

512 F.2d 125 p.129

405. Cited by:Response of Carolina v. Leasco Response, Inc., 498 F.2d 314, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 1974-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75182 (5th Cir. Fla. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

498 F.2d 314 p.320

406. Followed by:Joiner v. Dallas, 488 F.2d 519, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10512 (5th Cir. Tex. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

488 F.2d 519 p.520

Page 62

407. Cited by:American Radio Asso. v. Mobile S.S. Asso., 483 F.2d 1, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8233, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2047, 72 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P13903 (5th Cir. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

483 F.2d 1 p.6483 F.2d 1 p.7

408. Cited by:Jones v. Wade, 479 F.2d 1176, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9691 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

479 F.2d 1176 p.1181

409. Followed by, Cited by:Duke v. Texas, 477 F.2d 244, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10364 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7


Cited by:477 F.2d 244 p.254

410. Cited by:Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 474 F.2d 1108, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11182 (5th Cir. La. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

474 F.2d 1108 p.1113

411. Cited by:Shaw v. Garrison, 467 F.2d 113, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8147 (5th Cir. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

467 F.2d 113 p.114

412. Cited by:Palaio v. McAuliffe, 466 F.2d 1230, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457 (5th Cir. Ga. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

466 F.2d 1230 p.1232


413. Cited by:Rehfuss v. Guadalupe County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105235 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105235

414. Cited by:Chaffe McCall, LLP v. World Trade Ctr. of New Orleans, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14353 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6


Page 63

415. Cited by:Alexander v. Brookhaven Sch. Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6152 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


416. Cited by:Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Co., LLC v. Larrisquitu, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59726, 2007 A.M.C. 2141 (S.D. Tex. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


417. Cited by:Coughhorn v. Jackson County, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80464 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 2, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2


418. Distinguished by, Followed by, Cited by:Moore v. Louisiana, 459 F. Supp. 2d 504, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80217 (M.D. La. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Distinguished by:459 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.509


Cited by:459 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.507

419. Cited by:Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. CaremarkPCS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44712 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


420. Cited by:Energy Dev. Corp. v. St. Martin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994 (E.D. La. Jan. 24, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


421. Cited by:Torries v. Hebert, 111 F. Supp. 2d 806, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18442 (W.D. La. 2000)

111 F. Supp. 2d 806 p.814

422. Cited by:Faulder v. Johnson, 99 F. Supp. 2d 774, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21819 (S.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

99 F. Supp. 2d 774 p.776

423. Cited by:

Page 64

American Tourmaline Fields v. International Paper Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7584 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


424. Followed by:Johnson v. New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Found., Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7038 (E.D. La. May 10, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


425. Cited by:New York Life Ins. Co. v. Gillespie, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15569 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 17, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6


426. Cited by:Liptak v. Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5424 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


427. Cited by:Hurst v. Regis Low, Ltd., 878 F. Supp. 981, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2976 (S.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

878 F. Supp. 981 p.984

428. Cited by:Wightman v. Jones, 809 F. Supp. 474, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20296 (N.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

809 F. Supp. 474 p.478

429. Cited by:Smith v. Travis County Educ. Dist., 791 F. Supp. 1170, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6310 (W.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

791 F. Supp. 1170 p.1189

430. Cited by:Nissan Motor Corp. v. Royal Nissan, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 736, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2848 (E.D. La. 1991)

757 F. Supp. 736 p.738

431. Cited by:Wicker v. Union County General Hospital, 673 F. Supp. 177, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10544, 1987-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67804 (N.D. Miss. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5

673 F. Supp. 177 p.183

432. Cited by:El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Valero Interstate Transmission Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14147 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

Page 65

433. Cited by:

Texas Employers Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 618 F. Supp. 1316, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15422 (E.D. Tex. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

618 F. Supp. 1316 p.1323

434. Cited by:Bear Creek Water Asso. v. Canton, 606 F. Supp. 247, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21964 (S.D. Miss. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

606 F. Supp. 247 p.249606 F. Supp. 247 p.250

435. Cited by:Martinez v. Deaf Smith County Grain Processors, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1200, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19008, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34592, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1167 (N.D. Tex. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

583 F. Supp. 1200 p.1211

436. Cited by:Pizzolato v. Perez, 524 F. Supp. 914, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15580 (E.D. La. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

524 F. Supp. 914 p.923

437. Explained by:Bates v. Estelle, 483 F. Supp. 224, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9892 (S.D. Tex. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

483 F. Supp. 224 p.227

438. Cited by:Corpus Christi Peoples' Baptist Church, Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Human Resources, 481 F. Supp. 1101, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8439, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1028 (S.D. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

481 F. Supp. 1101 p.1106

439. Cited by:Brown v. Jones, 473 F. Supp. 439, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13692 (N.D. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

473 F. Supp. 439 p.449

440. Cited by:Nash v. Chandler, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2342 (E.D. Tex. 1979)

441. Cited by:

ROUSSEL v. BOREN, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14515 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

442. Cited by:

M P I, Inc. v. McCullough, 463 F. Supp. 887, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7247 (N.D. Miss. 1978) LexisNexis

Page 66

Headnotes HN6, HN7463 F. Supp. 887 p.893

443. Cited by:Britt v. Suckle, 453 F. Supp. 987, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815 (E.D. Tex. 1978)

453 F. Supp. 987 p.1002

444. Cited by:Shore v. Howard, 414 F. Supp. 379, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14998 (N.D. Tex. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

414 F. Supp. 379 p.385

445. Cited by:Joiner v. Dallas, 380 F. Supp. 754, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7116 (N.D. Tex. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

380 F. Supp. 754 p.758

446. Followed by:Harrington v. Arceneaux, 367 F. Supp. 1268, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14375 (W.D. La. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

367 F. Supp. 1268 p.1272

447. Explained by:United States v. Texas, 356 F. Supp. 469, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12114 (E.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

356 F. Supp. 469 p.471

448. Cited by:Ferdinand v. Garrison, 348 F. Supp. 1254, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12039 (E.D. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

348 F. Supp. 1254 p.1257

449. Cited by:McGuire v. Roebuck, 347 F. Supp. 1111, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12360 (E.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

347 F. Supp. 1111 p.1118


450. Cited by:Bey v. Bagley, 301 Fed. Appx. 442, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23818, 2008 FED App. 703N (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

301 Fed. Appx. 442 p.445

451. Cited by:Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm'n, 501 F.3d 592, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20607, 2007

Page 67

FED App. 347P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7501 F.3d 592 p.600

452. Followed by:Parker v. Goodman (In re Parker), 499 F.3d 616, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20551, 2007 FED App. 343P (6th Cir.), Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P81003 (6th Cir. Ky. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

499 F.3d 616 p.626

453. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Cooey v. Bradshaw, 338 F.3d 615, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 15369, 2003 FED App. 267P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

338 F.3d 615 p.620

454. Cited by:Tropf v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9054, 2002 FED App. 169P (6th Cir.), RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P10262 (6th Cir. Mich. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

289 F.3d 929 p.942

455. Cited by:NGS Am., Inc. v. Jefferson, 218 F.3d 519, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15521, 2000 FED App. 0216P (6th Cir.), 2000 FED App. 216P (6th Cir.), 24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1971 (6th Cir. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

218 F.3d 519 p.523

456. Cited by:Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., 142 F.3d 326, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7483, 1998 FED App. 113P (6th Cir.), 1998 FED App. 0113P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

142 F.3d 326 p.329142 F.3d 326 p.331

457. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 1072, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262, 1998 FED App. 88P (6th Cir.), 1998 FED App. 0088P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

139 F.3d 1072 p.1078

458. Cited by:Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., 119 F.3d 393, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17812, 1997 FED App. 217P (6th Cir.), 1997 FED App. 0217P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

119 F.3d 393 p.398

459. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20816, 1995 FED App. 240P (6th Cir.), 1995 FED App. 0240P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

61 F.3d 507 p.510

Page 68

460. Cited by:Arlans Agency v. Gossett, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175 (6th Cir. Mich. Jan. 19, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

461. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:

Alia v. Michigan Supreme Court, 906 F.2d 1100, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10063 (6th Cir. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

906 F.2d 1100 p.1106

462. Cited by:Ballard v. Stanton, 833 F.2d 593, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17708 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

833 F.2d 593 p.594

463. Cited by:Tierney v. Toledo, 824 F.2d 1497, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9942, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3217 (6th Cir. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

824 F.2d 1497 p.1507

464. Cited by:Kelley v. Ohio, 818 F.2d 866, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6521 (6th Cir. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

465. Cited by:

South Macomb Disposal Authority v. Washington, 790 F.2d 500, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25113 (6th Cir. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

790 F.2d 500 p.502

466. Cited by:Janzen v. Knox County Bd. of Education, 790 F.2d 484, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24930 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

790 F.2d 484 p.486

467. Cited by:Silverberg v. Thomson McKinnon Secur., Inc., 787 F.2d 1079, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23837, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92551 (6th Cir. Ohio 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

787 F.2d 1079 p.1083

468. Cited by:Elliott v. University of Tennessee, 766 F.2d 982, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20422, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P35419, 38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 522 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

766 F.2d 982 p.991

469. Cited by:Traughber v. Beauchane, 760 F.2d 673, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30995 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

760 F.2d 673 p.683

Page 69

470. Cited by:Fellowship of Christ Church v. Thorburn, 758 F.2d 1140, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30571 (6th Cir. Mich. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

758 F.2d 1140 p.1143

471. Cited by:HARMON v. SWAGGERT, 754 F.2d 374, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 13426 (6th Cir. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

472. Cited by:

American Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke, 708 F.2d 202, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28110 (6th Cir. Ky. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

708 F.2d 202 p.204

473. Cited by:Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25422, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98822 (6th Cir. Mich. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

690 F.2d 558 p.562

474. Cited by:Silcox v. United Trucking Service, Inc., 687 F.2d 848, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25942 (6th Cir. Ky. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

687 F.2d 848 p.850

475. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Northwood Apartments v. La Valley, 649 F.2d 401, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13279 (6th Cir. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


Cited by:649 F.2d 401 p.406

476. Explained by:General Motors Corp. v. Buha, 623 F.2d 455, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16620, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2375 (6th Cir. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

623 F.2d 455 p.458

477. Cited by:Roth v. Bank of Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9265 (6th Cir. Mich. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

583 F.2d 527 p.533

478. Cited by:Flynt v. Leis, 574 F.2d 874, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11714 (6th Cir. Ohio 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

574 F.2d 874 p.880

Page 70

479. Cited by:Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff, 549 F.2d 1052, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10266 (6th Cir. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

549 F.2d 1052 p.1061549 F.2d 1052 p.1062

480. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Louisville Area Inter-Faith Committee for United Farm Workers v. Nottingham Liquors, Ltd., 542 F.2d 652, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6875, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2600, 79 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11762 (6th Cir. Ky. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

542 F.2d 652 p.655

481. Cited by:United States v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F.2d 962, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12745 (6th Cir. Mich. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

522 F.2d 962 p.965

482. Cited by:Sexton v. Kennedy, 519 F.2d 797, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15139 (6th Cir. Ohio 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

519 F.2d 797 p.797

483. Cited by:Krause v. Rhodes, 471 F.2d 430, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6656 (6th Cir. Ohio 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

471 F.2d 430 p.439

484. Cited by:Gay v. Board of Registration Comm'rs, 466 F.2d 879, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7729 (6th Cir. Ky. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

466 F.2d 879 p.884


485. Followed by:5455 Clarkins Drive, Inc. v. Poole, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80456 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7


486. Cited by:Haase v. GunnAllen Fin., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70013 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


487. Cited by:Rea v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76315 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2009)

Page 71

LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN72009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76315

488. Cited by:Co-Patent Owners # U.S. 6,889,615 v. Michigan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64617 ( E.D. Mich. July 27, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


489. Followed by:Smith v. Encore Credit Corp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 910, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99413 (N.D. Ohio 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

623 F. Supp. 2d 910 p.919

490. Cited by:Butler v. Tennessee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52967 (W.D. Tenn. July 10, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


491. Cited by:Cooey v. Strickland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17057 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


492. Cited by:Bowman v. City of Middleburg Heights, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70664 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7


493. Cited by:Cooey v. Strickland, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67390 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


494. Followed by:Peacock v. PACE Int'l Union Pension Fund Plan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62471, 42 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1696 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


495. Followed by:Mosby v. Baity, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61571 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


496. Cited by:Cooey v. Taft, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45769 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


Page 72

497. Cited by:Birkholz v. County of Macomb, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68398 ( E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


498. Cited by:Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32963, 18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 268 (W.D. Mich. May 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


499. Cited by:Warner v. Fuller Rehab. & Consulting Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41699 (E.D. Tenn. June 23, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


500. Cited by:Deir v. City of Mentor, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44857 (N.D. Ohio June 20, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7


501. Followed by:Smith v. Oakland County Circuit Court, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22853 ( E.D. Mich. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

344 F. Supp. 2d 1030 p.1070

502. Followed by:Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Baird, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15873 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


503. Cited by:Epps v. Lauderdale County, 139 F. Supp. 2d 859, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

139 F. Supp. 2d 859 p.868

504. Cited by:Tesmer v. Kowalski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 622, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17060 ( E.D. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

114 F. Supp. 2d 622 p.627

505. Cited by:In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 876, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4998 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

93 F. Supp. 2d 876 p.879

Page 73

506. Cited by:Tesmer v. Granholm, 114 F. Supp. 2d 603, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16346 ( E.D. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

114 F. Supp. 2d 603 p.617

507. Cited by:Marks v. City of Warren, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17990 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7


508. Cited by:Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of Court, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15928 ( E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


509. Cited by:Neway Anchorlok Int'l, Inc. v. Longwood Indus., 107 F. Supp. 2d 810, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22092, 2000-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73048 (W.D. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

107 F. Supp. 2d 810 p.813

510. Cited by:Caughorn v. Phillips, 981 F. Supp. 1085, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17947 (E.D. Tenn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

981 F. Supp. 1085 p.1087

511. Cited by:Alexander v. Margolis, 921 F. Supp. 482, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17611, 13 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1017 (W.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

921 F. Supp. 482 p.484

512. Cited by:Hardison v. Griswold, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5151, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2195, 95 TNT 102-11 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2195 p.2196

513. Cited by:Michigan Protection & Advocacy Servs. v. Kirkendall, 863 F. Supp. 482, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12638 ( E.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

514. Cited by:

Martin v. Voinovich, 840 F. Supp. 1175, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18468, 1 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P1-201, 4 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1240, 43 Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 409 (S.D. Ohio 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

840 F. Supp. 1175 p.1189

515. Cited by:

Page 74

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Serv. v. Kirkendall, 841 F. Supp. 796, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17767 ( E.D. Mich. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

841 F. Supp. 796 p.802

516. Cited by:Professional Hockey Club Cent. Sports Club of Army v. Detroit Red Wings, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 706, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3703 ( E.D. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

787 F. Supp. 706 p.716

517. Cited by:Mallitz v. Federal Packaging Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21764 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

518. Cited by:

Keith v. Elden, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19573 ( E.D. Mich. May 9, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

519. Cited by:

Howard v. Allard, 122 B.R. 696, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2956 (W.D. Ky. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

122 B.R. 696 p.699

520. Limited by, Cited by:Automobile Club of Michigan v. Stacey, 750 F. Supp. 259, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15662 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

Limited by:750 F. Supp. 259 p.262

Cited by:750 F. Supp. 259 p.263

521. Cited by:Prak v. Gregart, 749 F. Supp. 825, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14725 (W.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

749 F. Supp. 825 p.827

522. Cited by:Shannon v. Recording Industry Ass'n, 661 F. Supp. 205, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15079 (S.D. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

661 F. Supp. 205 p.209

523. Cited by:Friedman v. Hall, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15696 ( E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

524. Cited by:

Brandon v. Allen, 645 F. Supp. 1261, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19389 (W.D. Tenn. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

645 F. Supp. 1261 p.1269

Page 75

525. Cited by:Ohio ex rel. Ney v. PJC, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 28, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23992 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

592 F. Supp. 28 p.30

526. Cited by:Donovan v. Hamilton County Municipal Court, 580 F. Supp. 554, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19593, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34590, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1246 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

580 F. Supp. 554 p.558

527. Cited by:Klotz v. Underwood, 563 F. Supp. 335, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9963 (E.D. Tenn. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

563 F. Supp. 335 p.341

528. Cited by:Danish News Co. v. Ann Arbor, 517 F. Supp. 86, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13065 ( E.D. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

517 F. Supp. 86 p.94

529. Cited by:Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Education, 510 F. Supp. 1104, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11435 (W.D. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

510 F. Supp. 1104 p.1108

530. Cited by:United States v. Michigan, 508 F. Supp. 480, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14768 (W.D. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

508 F. Supp. 480 p.486

531. Cited by:United States v. Michigan, 505 F. Supp. 467, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17715 (W.D. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

505 F. Supp. 467 p.486

532. Cited by:Newark Teachers Asso. v. Newark City Board of Education, 444 F. Supp. 1283, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19672 (S.D. Ohio 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5

444 F. Supp. 1283 p.1285

533. Explained by, Cited by:Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13211, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1337 (N.D. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

Explained by:448 F. Supp. 306 p.331

Page 76

448 F. Supp. 306 p.364

Cited by:448 F. Supp. 306 p.335448 F. Supp. 306 p.352448 F. Supp. 306 p.366

534. Cited by:International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Evans, 440 F. Supp. 414, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14299 (S.D. Ohio 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

440 F. Supp. 414 p.419

535. Followed by:Hearing Aid Asso. v. Bullock, 413 F. Supp. 1032, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16212 (E.D. Ky. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

413 F. Supp. 1032 p.1035

536. Cited by:Karr v. Blay, 413 F. Supp. 579, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15641, 1 Ohio Op. 3d 221 (N.D. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

413 F. Supp. 579 p.585

537. Cited by:Hodory v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 408 F. Supp. 1016, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16300 (N.D. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

408 F. Supp. 1016 p.1018

538. Cited by:Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 73 F.R.D. 30, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12422 (W.D. Mich. 1976)

73 F.R.D. 30 p.38

539. Followed by:Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff, 399 F. Supp. 409, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16371 (N.D. Ohio 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

399 F. Supp. 409 p.413

540. Cited by:Watson v. Branch County Bank, 380 F. Supp. 945, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7197, 15 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (CBC) 235 (W.D. Mich. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

380 F. Supp. 945 p.957380 F. Supp. 945 p.963

541. Cited by:Watson v. Kenlick Coal Co., 365 F. Supp. 456, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11775 (E.D. Ky. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

365 F. Supp. 456 p.457

Page 77

542. Cited by:Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court, 349 F. Supp. 1125, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12534, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 309, 69 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P32747, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 856 (S.D. Ohio 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

349 F. Supp. 1125 p.1137349 F. Supp. 1125 p.1138


543. Cited by:In re Padgett, 37 B.R. 280, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5143, 11 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 739 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

37 B.R. 280 p.282

544. Cited by:In re Manier, 16 B.R. 911, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 5062, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P68670 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


545. Explained by:Mannix v. Machnik, 244 Fed. Appx. 37, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16144 (7th Cir. Ill. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

244 Fed. Appx. 37 p.39

546. Cited by:United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11245 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

411 F.3d 838 p.845

547. Cited by:Lawson v. Hill, 368 F.3d 955, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10158 (7th Cir. Ind. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

368 F.3d 955 p.960

548. Cited by:Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court for Cal., 326 F.3d 816, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7302 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

326 F.3d 816 p.824

549. Cited by:Ramsden v. AgriBank, FCB, 214 F.3d 865, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12097 (7th Cir. Wis. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

214 F.3d 865 p.869

550. Cited by:Arkebauer v. Kiley, 985 F.2d 1351, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes

Page 78

HN4, HN5, HN6985 F.2d 1351 p.1357

551. Questioned by:NAACP v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26682, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 278 (7th Cir. Wis. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

978 F.2d 287 p.295

552. Cited by:Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Moran, 959 F.2d 634, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254 (7th Cir. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

959 F.2d 634 p.635

553. Cited by:Heldstab v. Milwaukee, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20500 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

554. Cited by:

Pelfresne v. Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19667 (7th Cir. Wis. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

917 F.2d 1017 p.1023

555. Cited by:United States v. Lov-It Creamery, Inc., 895 F.2d 410, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933 (7th Cir. Wis. 1990)

895 F.2d 410 p.412

556. Cited by:Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utilities Co., 864 F.2d 481, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17736, 1988-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P68375 (7th Cir. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

864 F.2d 481 p.482

557. Cited by:Bethune Plaza, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 863 F.2d 525, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17172, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1400 (7th Cir. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

863 F.2d 525 p.528

558. Distinguished by, Explained by, Cited by:Hickey v. Duffy, 827 F.2d 234, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11301, 8 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 974 (7th Cir. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

Distinguished by:827 F.2d 234 p.238

Explained by:827 F.2d 234 p.244

Cited by:827 F.2d 234 p.241

Page 79

559. Cited by:Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Hartigan, 816 F.2d 1177, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690, 25 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1892, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20745 (7th Cir. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

816 F.2d 1177 p.1182

560. Cited by:Dunn v. Carey, 808 F.2d 555, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35002 (7th Cir. Ind. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

808 F.2d 555 p.559

561. Cited by:Lynk v. La Porte Superior Court No. 2, 789 F.2d 554, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24686 (7th Cir. Ind. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

789 F.2d 554 p.558

562. Cited by:City Investing Co. v. Simcox, 633 F.2d 56, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13054, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97661 (7th Cir. Ind. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

633 F.2d 56 p.64

563. Cited by:Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19950 (7th Cir. Ill. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

616 F.2d 1006 p.1011

564. Explained by:La Salle Nat'l Bank v. Rosewell, 604 F.2d 530, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12249 (7th Cir. Ill. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

604 F.2d 530 p.539

565. Cited by:Mescall v. Burrus, 603 F.2d 1266, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12534 (7th Cir. Ill. 1979)

603 F.2d 1266 p.1270

566. Cited by:Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton, 582 F.2d 1071, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9758, 50 A.L.R. Fed. 758 (7th Cir. Ill. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7

582 F.2d 1071 p.1078

567. Cited by:United States v. Kuehn, 562 F.2d 427, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11517 (7th Cir. Ill. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

562 F.2d 427 p.431

568. Followed by:

Page 80

Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 545 F.2d 1050, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8807, 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60919 (7th Cir. Ill. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

545 F.2d 1050 p.1056

569. Cited by:Ahrensfeld v. Stephens, 528 F.2d 193, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11331 (7th Cir. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

528 F.2d 193 p.196

570. Cited by:Barancik v. Investors Funding Corp., 489 F.2d 933, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7224, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94208 (7th Cir. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

489 F.2d 933 p.936

571. Cited by:Clean Air Coordinating Committee v. Roth-Adam Fuel Co., 465 F.2d 323, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8631, 4 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1340, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20440 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

465 F.2d 323 p.326

572. Cited by:Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7265, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 798 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

468 F.2d 389 p.401468 F.2d 389 p.408468 F.2d 389 p.411

573. Cited by:Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F.2d 603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8705 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

463 F.2d 603 p.606463 F.2d 603 p.610


574. Cited by:King v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17955 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2


575. Cited by:Bedree v. Pers. Representative of Estate of Lebamoff, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23808 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


576. Cited by:Orban v. City of Warsaw, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42327 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes

Page 81

HN62007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42327

577. Followed by:United States EEOC v. Custom Cos., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16691 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


578. Cited by:Turner v. County of Cook, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31212 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


579. Cited by:Clarry v. Hatch, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31469 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


580. Cited by:Schmude v. Sheahan, 318 F. Supp. 2d 606, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8233 (N.D. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

318 F. Supp. 2d 606 p.625

581. Cited by:Schmude v. Sheahan, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5181 (N.D. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

312 F. Supp. 2d 1047 p.1078

582. Cited by:Garner v. Dreyer, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5913 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


583. Cited by:Catuara v. Heavner Handegan Scott & Beyers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8027 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


584. Distinguished by:Schmitt v. Schmitt, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1243 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


585. Cited by:Branch v. City of Elmhurst, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8868 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7


Page 82

586. Cited by:Patterson v. Leyden, 947 F. Supp. 1211, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16395 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

947 F. Supp. 1211 p.1216

587. Cited by:United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Barker Car Rental, 944 F. Supp. 739, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16511 (S.D. Ind. 1996)

944 F. Supp. 739 p.747

588. Cited by:Offutt v. Kaplan, 884 F. Supp. 1179, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4882 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

884 F. Supp. 1179 p.1189

589. Cited by:United States v. Village of Palatine, 845 F. Supp. 540, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6619 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

845 F. Supp. 540 p.542

590. Cited by:Norris v. Board of Educ. of Greenwood Community School Corp., 797 F. Supp. 1452, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10404 (S.D. Ind. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

797 F. Supp. 1452 p.1464

591. Cited by:Black v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 750 F. Supp. 901, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15567 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

750 F. Supp. 901 p.903

592. Cited by:American Federation of State, etc. v. Tristano, 695 F. Supp. 410, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10829 (N.D. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

695 F. Supp. 410 p.410

593. Cited by:Munroe v. Lasch, 73 B.R. 909, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4101, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P71887 (E.D. Wis. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

73 B.R. 909 p.914

594. Cited by:Cronson v. Clark, 645 F. Supp. 793, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19119 (C.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

645 F. Supp. 793 p.794

595. Cited by:

Page 83

MATTHEWS v. ROUND BARN MANOR ASSN., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21997 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

596. Cited by:

Jones v. Chicago, 639 F. Supp. 146, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27781 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

639 F. Supp. 146 p.150

597. Cited by:In re Klawson, 50 B.R. 776, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18270, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 537 (N.D. Ind. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

598. Cited by:

Johns v. Klawson, 50 B.R. 776, 13 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 537 (N.D. Ind. 1985)50 B.R. 776 p.778

599. Cited by:United States v. Phillips, 580 F. Supp. 517, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19651 (N.D. Ill. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

580 F. Supp. 517 p.519

600. Cited by:Eyler v. Babcox, 582 F. Supp. 981, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10651 (N.D. Ill. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

582 F. Supp. 981 p.984

601. Cited by:Begg v. Moffitt, 555 F. Supp. 1344, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19448 (N.D. Ill. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

555 F. Supp. 1344 p.1346

602. Cited by:Universal Business Computing Co. v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp., 539 F. Supp. 1142, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12746, 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64810 (N.D. Ill. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

539 F. Supp. 1142 p.1144

603. Followed by:EEOC v. Levi Strauss & Co., 515 F. Supp. 640, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13139, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32392, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 346 (N.D. Ill. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

515 F. Supp. 640 p.642

604. Cited by:HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK v. VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10686 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

605. Cited by:

Meyer v. Niles Township, 477 F. Supp. 357, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10824 (N.D. Ill. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

Page 84

477 F. Supp. 357 p.364

606. Explained by:United States General, Inc. v. Arndt, 417 F. Supp. 1300, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13793 (E.D. Wis. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

417 F. Supp. 1300 p.1308

607. Cited by:E-C Tape Service, Inc. v. Barron, 71 F.R.D. 585, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14220 (E.D. Wis. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

71 F.R.D. 585 p.58871 F.R.D. 585 p.589

608. Cited by:Hernandez v. Danaher, 405 F. Supp. 757, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14705 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

405 F. Supp. 757 p.759

609. Followed by:Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 403 F. Supp. 527, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12155, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60418 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

403 F. Supp. 527 p.536

610. Cited by:Do-Right Auto Sales v. Howlett, 401 F. Supp. 1035, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15964 (N.D. Ill. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

401 F. Supp. 1035 p.1038

611. Cited by:Maney v. Ratcliff, 399 F. Supp. 760, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16359 (E.D. Wis. 1975)

399 F. Supp. 760 p.772

612. Cited by:Stebbins v. Weaver, 396 F. Supp. 104, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12092 (W.D. Wis. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

396 F. Supp. 104 p.110

613. Cited by:Nihiser v. Sendak, 405 F. Supp. 482, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8222 (N.D. Ind. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

405 F. Supp. 482 p.493

614. Cited by:Doe v. Ceci, 384 F. Supp. 7, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (E.D. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

384 F. Supp. 7 p.9

Page 85

615. Cited by:Concerned Consumers League v. O'Neill, 371 F. Supp. 644, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12122 (E.D. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

371 F. Supp. 644 p.646

616. Distinguished by:Adkins v. Underwood, 370 F. Supp. 510, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12757 (N.D. Ill. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

370 F. Supp. 510 p.514

617. Followed by:International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Conlisk, 374 F. Supp. 1010, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10434 (N.D. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

374 F. Supp. 1010 p.1013

618. Cited by:Foster v. Zeeko, 362 F. Supp. 295, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12569 (N.D. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

362 F. Supp. 295 p.298

619. Cited by:Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11526 (E.D. Wis. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

349 F. Supp. 1078 p.1083

620. Cited by:State ex rel. Bruce v. Larkin, 346 F. Supp. 1065, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12602 (E.D. Wis. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

346 F. Supp. 1065 p.1067


621. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litig., 263 F.3d 795, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19035, 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91546 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


Cited by:263 F.3d 795 p.801

622. Cited by:Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (8th Cir. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

188 F.3d 1031 p.1035

Page 86

623. Cited by:SDDS, Inc. v. South Dakota (In re SDDS, Inc.), 97 F.3d 1030, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26020, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20290 (8th Cir. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

97 F.3d 1030 p.1037

624. Cited by:Kansas Pub. Emples. Retirement Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., 77 F.3d 1063, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3134 (8th Cir. Mo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

77 F.3d 1063 p.1069

625. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 909 F.2d 1181, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932 (8th Cir. N.D. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


Cited by:909 F.2d 1181 p.1183

626. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Bressman v. Farrier, 900 F.2d 1305, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139 (8th Cir. Iowa 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

900 F.2d 1305 p.1311

627. Cited by:Hicks v. Brown Group, Inc., 902 F.2d 630, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6069, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39823, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1027 (8th Cir. Mo. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

902 F.2d 630 p.642

628. Cited by:Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 887 F.2d 844, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 15193 (8th Cir. N.D. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

887 F.2d 844 p.855

629. Cited by:Lewellen v. Raff, 843 F.2d 1103, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161 (8th Cir. Ark. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

843 F.2d 1103 p.1109

630. Cited by:Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24150 (8th Cir. Iowa 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

730 F.2d 1139 p.1146

631. Cited by:National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 687 F.2d 1122, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16542, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.

Page 87

(CCH) P98778 (8th Cir. Mo. 1982)687 F.2d 1122 p.1127

632. Cited by:In re Federal Skywalk Cases, 680 F.2d 1175, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18649, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 176 (8th Cir. Mo. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

680 F.2d 1175 p.1181

633. Cited by:Peterson v. Sheran, 635 F.2d 1335, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11689 (8th Cir. Minn. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

635 F.2d 1335 p.1339

634. Cited by:McCurry v. Allen, 606 F.2d 795, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11502 (8th Cir. Mo. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

606 F.2d 795 p.799

635. Cited by:Krey Packing Co. v. Hamilton, 572 F.2d 1280, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11739, 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2111, 83 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10519 (8th Cir. Mo. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

572 F.2d 1280 p.1283

636. Cited by:Stockslager v. Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13492, 6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20388 (8th Cir. Ark. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

528 F.2d 949 p.951

637. Cited by:Sartin v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 535 F.2d 430, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11493 (8th Cir. Minn. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

535 F.2d 430 p.434

638. Cited by:Goodrich v. Supreme Court of South Dakota, 511 F.2d 316, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15756 (8th Cir. S.D. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

511 F.2d 316 p.318


639. Followed by:Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29517 (D.S.D. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

607 F. Supp. 2d 1069 p.1074

640. Cited by:

Page 88

Ebiza, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 434 F. Supp. 2d 710, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36214 (S.D. Iowa 2006)434 F. Supp. 2d 710 p.716

641. Cited by:Lopez v. City of Rogers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14570 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 8, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7


642. Followed by, Cited by:In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litig., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6313, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90982 (E.D. Mo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


Cited by:95 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.104895 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.1049

643. Cited by:Wells' Dairy v. Estate of Richardson, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3199 (N.D. Iowa 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

89 F. Supp. 2d 1042 p.1062

644. Cited by:Dominium Mgmt. Servs. v. Nationwide Hous. Group, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7474 (D. Minn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

3 F. Supp. 2d 1067 p.1069

645. Cited by:Harmon v. City of Kansas City, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4757 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


646. Cited by:Gunderson v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 976 F. Supp. 818, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14174 (N.D. Iowa 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

976 F. Supp. 818 p.822

647. Followed by:Martin v. Constance, 843 F. Supp. 1321, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1559, 4 Am. Disabilities Dec. 523 (E.D. Mo. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

843 F. Supp. 1321 p.1323

648. Cited by:Trucke v. Erlemeier, 657 F. Supp. 1382, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3079 (N.D. Iowa 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7

657 F. Supp. 1382 p.1387

Page 89

649. Cited by:Buranen v. Hanna, 623 F. Supp. 445, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13139 (D. Minn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

623 F. Supp. 445 p.449

650. Cited by:Icahn v. Blunt, 612 F. Supp. 1400, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18621, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92096 (W.D. Mo. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

612 F. Supp. 1400 p.1411

651. Cited by:Allen v. Johnston, 575 F. Supp. 935, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11802 (S.D. Iowa 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

575 F. Supp. 935 p.937

652. Cited by:Dick v. Watonwan County, 562 F. Supp. 1083, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17832, 13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1068 (D. Minn. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

562 F. Supp. 1083 p.1098

653. Cited by:Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 556 F. Supp. 740, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19265 (S.D. Iowa 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

556 F. Supp. 740 p.744

654. Cited by:National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 524 F. Supp. 906, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15067, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98299 (W.D. Mo. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN7

524 F. Supp. 906 p.913

655. Cited by:Gleghorn v. First Sec. Bank, 523 F. Supp. 359, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14774, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P32391, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 911 (E.D. Ark. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

523 F. Supp. 359 p.361

656. Explained by:Empire, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 524 F. Supp. 898, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15066, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98310 (W.D. Mo. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

524 F. Supp. 898 p.901

657. Cited by:Rapp v. Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of Iowa State Bar Asso., 504 F. Supp. 1092, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15840 (S.D. Iowa 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

504 F. Supp. 1092 p.1102

Page 90

658. Cited by:Walker v. Wegner, 477 F. Supp. 648, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9495 (D.S.D. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

477 F. Supp. 648 p.655

659. Cited by:Orlando v. Wizel, 443 F. Supp. 744, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20323, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 886 (W.D. Ark. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

443 F. Supp. 744 p.750

660. Cited by:Remmick v. Barnes County, 435 F. Supp. 914, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14344, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7924, 19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1227 (D.N.D. 1977)

435 F. Supp. 914 p.916

661. Cited by:Henry v. Link, 408 F. Supp. 1204, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16120, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10992, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1470 (D.N.D. 1976)

408 F. Supp. 1204 p.1208

662. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:N. D. D., Inc. v. Faches, 385 F. Supp. 276, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11758 (N.D. Iowa 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

385 F. Supp. 276 p.279

663. Cited by:Century 21 Shows, Inc. v. Iowa, 346 F. Supp. 1050, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12348 (S.D. Iowa 1972)

346 F. Supp. 1050 p.1053


664. Cited by:Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13685 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

569 F.3d 1120 p.1124

665. Cited by:Ball v. Rodgers, 492 F.3d 1094, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16939 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

492 F.3d 1094 p.1104

666. Cited by:Winn v. Killian, 307 F.3d 1011, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20811, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10135, 2002 D.A.R. 11565 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

307 F.3d 1011 p.1017

Page 91

667. Cited by:Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2748, 2002 D.A.R. 3355, 52 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 744 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

285 F.3d 801 p.806

668. Cited by:Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 299, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 205, 99 D.A.R. 279 (9th Cir. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

165 F.3d 1234 p.1237

669. Cited by:Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22781, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6959, 97 D.A.R. 11282 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

121 F.3d 1372 p.1378

670. Cited by:Barajas v. Bermudez, 43 F.3d 1251, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36145, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9695, 94 D.A.R. 18079, 129 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33188 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

43 F.3d 1251 p.1256

671. Cited by:Brown v. Vasquez, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1998, 92 D.A.R. 2202 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

672. Cited by:

Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30183, 92 D.A.R. 10 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

952 F.2d 1164 p.1169

673. Cited by:Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa, 936 F.2d 466, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13144, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4928, 91 D.A.R. 7590, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40880, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 396 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

936 F.2d 466 p.468

674. Cited by:Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15006 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

834 F.2d 730 p.740834 F.2d 730 p.741

675. Cited by:Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12686, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 810, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P72008 (9th Cir. Nev. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

828 F.2d 1385 p.1393

Page 92

676. Cited by:Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23859 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1985)

775 F.2d 1381 p.1384

677. Cited by:Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of California, 739 F.2d 466, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19854 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

739 F.2d 466 p.468

678. Cited by:Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20856 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

740 F.2d 710 p.714

679. Cited by:WHITE MT. APACHE TRIBE v. WILLIAMS, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25725 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

680. Cited by:

Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 705 F.2d 1059, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28584 (9th Cir. 1983)705 F.2d 1059 p.1065

681. Followed by:Miofsky v. Superior Court of California, 703 F.2d 332, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27924 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

703 F.2d 332 p.335

682. Cited by:Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19856, 1982-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64711 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

682 F.2d 1267 p.1271682 F.2d 1267 p.1272

683. Cited by:Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21993 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982)

667 F.2d 811 p.815

684. Cited by:Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16011 (9th Cir. Cal. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

625 F.2d 240 p.245

685. Cited by:Tongol v. Usery, 601 F.2d 1091, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12696 (9th Cir. Cal. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

601 F.2d 1091 p.1099

Page 93

686. Cited by:Cleaver v. Wilcox, 499 F.2d 940, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8239 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

499 F.2d 940 p.943

687. Cited by:Cadena v. Perasso, 498 F.2d 383, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8456 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

498 F.2d 383 p.384

688. Cited by:Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, 495 F.2d 1, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9627 (9th Cir. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

495 F.2d 1 p.10

689. Cited by:Francisco Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirby, 482 F.2d 481, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8706 (9th Cir. Cal. 1973)

482 F.2d 481 p.485

690. Distinguished by:Anderson v. Nemetz, 474 F.2d 814, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12042 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

474 F.2d 814 p.818474 F.2d 814 p.820

691. Explained by:Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6659 (9th Cir. Cal. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

469 F.2d 1159 p.1164469 F.2d 1159 p.1165


692. Cited by:AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dep't of Human Servs., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50837 (D. Haw. 2008)

567 F. Supp. 2d 1238 p.1249

693. Cited by:Clark v. City of Oakland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56813 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2


694. Cited by:Tift v. Ball, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27457 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


Page 94

695. Cited by:Faurot v. Barton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78907 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


696. Cited by:Bank of Am., N.A. (USA) v. Miller, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9139 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


697. Cited by:Case v. Mont. State AG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90624 (D. Mont. Dec. 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


698. Cited by:Annunziato v. eMachines Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97020 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


699. Cited by:Cole v. Doe, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25648 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 p.1094

700. Cited by:Schillaci v. Peyton, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15527 (D. Haw. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

328 F. Supp. 2d 1103 p.1104

701. Cited by:Bank One Del. NA v. Wilens, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27379 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


702. Cited by:Southwest Adver., Inc. v. County of Clark, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8485 (D. Nev. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

202 F. Supp. 2d 1141 p.1142

703. Cited by:United States v. Furrow, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18489 (C.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

125 F. Supp. 2d 1178 p.1184125 F. Supp. 2d 1178 p.1185

Page 95

704. Cited by:Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Stach, 951 F. Supp. 1455, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 613, 62 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 1106, 97 D.A.R. 10384 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

951 F. Supp. 1455 p.1464

705. Cited by:Wu v. State Bar, 953 F. Supp. 315, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 617, 97 D.A.R. 1231 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

953 F. Supp. 315 p.322

706. Cited by:AT & T Management Pension Plan v. Tucker, 902 F. Supp. 1168, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14148, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2129 (C.D. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

902 F. Supp. 1168 p.1173

707. Cited by:Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F. Supp. 1068, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1494 (W.D. Wash. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

841 F. Supp. 1068 p.1083

708. Cited by:Kelly v. Intermountain Planned Parenthood, 828 F. Supp. 788, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21851 (D. Mont. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

828 F. Supp. 788 p.793828 F. Supp. 788 p.794

709. Cited by:Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Davis, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19146 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

710. Followed by:

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 788 F. Supp. 1498, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11122, 92 D.A.R. 14324 (S.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

788 F. Supp. 1498 p.1510

711. Cited by:Riley v. Nevada Supreme Court, 763 F. Supp. 446, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777 (D. Nev. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

763 F. Supp. 446 p.450

712. Cited by:Riley v. Nevada Supreme Court, 763 F. Supp. 446, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5929 (D. Nev. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

713. Cited by:

Schroll v. Plunkett, 760 F. Supp. 1385, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4266 (D. Or. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes

Page 96

HN4, HN6, HN7760 F. Supp. 1385 p.1389

714. Cited by:Schroll v. Plunkett, 760 F. Supp. 1378, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18625 (D. Or. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

760 F. Supp. 1378 p.1383

715. Cited by:Harper v. Federal Land Bank, 692 F. Supp. 1244, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8789 (D. Or. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

692 F. Supp. 1244 p.1250

716. Cited by:Delahunty v. Hawaii, 677 F. Supp. 1052, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12413 (D. Haw. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

677 F. Supp. 1052 p.1056

717. Cited by:Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster, 636 F. Supp. 486, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22907, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34819, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1292 (N.D. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

636 F. Supp. 486 p.493

718. Cited by:Glendale Federal Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Fox, 481 F. Supp. 616, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11580 (C.D. Cal. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

481 F. Supp. 616 p.631

719. Cited by:United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870 (W.D. Wash. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

459 F. Supp. 1020 p.1030

720. Cited by:Kelly v. Gilbert, 437 F. Supp. 201, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12909, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 700 (D. Mont. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

437 F. Supp. 201 p.213

721. Cited by:Mirin v. Justices of Supreme Court, 415 F. Supp. 1178, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15154 (D. Nev. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

415 F. Supp. 1178 p.1198415 F. Supp. 1178 p.1199

722. Cited by:Niles v. Lowe, 407 F. Supp. 132, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16877 (D. Haw. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes

Page 97

HN4, HN6, HN7407 F. Supp. 132 p.134

723. Cited by:McCubbrey v. Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp., 71 F.R.D. 62, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15860, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1376 (N.D. Cal. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

71 F.R.D. 62 p.65

724. Cited by:Sar Industries, Inc. v. Monogram Industries, Inc., 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15717, 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P60816 (C.D. Cal. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

725. Cited by:

Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 402 F. Supp. 95, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16100 (D. Haw. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

402 F. Supp. 95 p.102

726. Cited by:Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 372 F. Supp. 26, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12111 (C.D. Cal. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

372 F. Supp. 26 p.30

727. Cited by:United States v. Blackfeet Tribe of Blackfeet Indian Reservation, 369 F. Supp. 562, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10464 (D. Mont. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

369 F. Supp. 562 p.565


728. Cited by:State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Park (In re Si Yeon Park, Ltd.), 198 B.R. 956, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 937, 96 D.A.R. 12755, 29 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 570, 36 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1113 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

198 B.R. 956 p.967

729. Cited by:In re Sergio, Inc., 16 B.R. 898, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2379 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1981)

16 B.R. 898 p.915


730. Cited by:Tillman v. Johnson, 229 Fed. Appx. 813, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17595 (10th Cir. Kan. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

229 Fed. Appx. 813 p.813

731. Cited by:

Page 98

Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201, 1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1595, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1322 (10th Cir. Kan. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

122 F.3d 1309 p.1325

732. Cited by:Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16846, 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2121 (10th Cir. Kan. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

59 F.3d 1058 p.1064

733. Cited by:Arnold v. Duchesne County, 26 F.3d 982, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 13107 (10th Cir. Utah 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

26 F.3d 982 p.986

734. Cited by:Horton v. Clark, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27773 (10th Cir. Nov. 15, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

735. Cited by:

Brooks v. Barbour Energy Corp., 804 F.2d 1144, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33213 (10th Cir. Okla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

804 F.2d 1144 p.1146

736. Explained by:First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Lawing, 731 F.2d 680, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23802 (10th Cir. Wyo. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

731 F.2d 680 p.682

737. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Phelps v. Kansas Supreme Court, 662 F.2d 649, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17155 (10th Cir. Kan. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

662 F.2d 649 p.655

738. Cited by:CCMS Pub. Co. v. Dooley-Maloof, Inc., 645 F.2d 33, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14689, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 517 (10th Cir. Okla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

645 F.2d 33 p.38

739. Cited by:Douglas--Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Posey, 486 F.2d 739, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7229 (10th Cir. Colo. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

486 F.2d 739 p.743


740. Cited by:Ivory v. Werholtz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108885 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

Page 99

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108885

741. Cited by:Libertarian Party of Kan. v. Shawnee County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39691 (D. Kan. May 30, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


742. Cited by:Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court Cases, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24245 (D. Utah 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

431 F. Supp. 2d 1159 p.1180

743. Cited by:Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001)

192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 p.1150

744. Cited by:Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24531 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


745. Cited by:Sanders v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24104 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

192 F. Supp. 2d 1094 p.1107

746. Cited by:Schnurr v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23781 (D. Colo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

189 F. Supp. 2d 1105 p.1121

747. Cited by:Trackwell v. Kan. Judicial Branch, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8301 (D. Kan. May 10, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5


748. Cited by:Steffens v. Steffens, 955 F. Supp. 101, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6312 (D. Colo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

955 F. Supp. 101 p.103

749. Cited by:Goode v. Sumner County Comm'rs, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2649 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

750. Explained by, Cited by:

Page 100

Central Wyo. Law Assocs., P.C. v. Denhardt, 836 F. Supp. 793, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15623 (D. Wyo. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN6, HN7

Explained by:836 F. Supp. 793 p.806

Cited by:836 F. Supp. 793 p.807836 F. Supp. 793 p.809

751. Cited by:Taliaferro v. Voth, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13894 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7

752. Cited by:

Sipka v. Soet, 761 F. Supp. 761, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4990 (D. Kan. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

761 F. Supp. 761 p.764

753. Cited by:American Carriers, Inc. v. Baytree Investors, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7231 (D. Kan. June 10, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

754. Cited by:

Schaefer v. Wilcock, 676 F. Supp. 1092, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12067 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

676 F. Supp. 1092 p.1106

755. Cited by:Smith v. Eley, 675 F. Supp. 1301, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12069 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

675 F. Supp. 1301 p.1307

756. Cited by:Cooper v. Utah, 684 F. Supp. 1060, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13757 (D. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

684 F. Supp. 1060 p.1065

757. Followed by:Parents of Child, Code No. 870901W v. Coker, 676 F. Supp. 1072, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12988 (E.D. Okla. 1987)

676 F. Supp. 1072 p.1075

758. Cited by:Parents of Child v. Group I, 676 F. Supp. 1072, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (E.D. Okla. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

759. Cited by:

Eggleston v. Colorado, 588 F. Supp. 1352, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24749 (D. Colo. 1984)588 F. Supp. 1352 p.1354

Page 101

760. Cited by:Winslow v. Leh, 577 F. Supp. 951, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20377 (D. Colo. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

577 F. Supp. 951 p.953

761. Cited by:Layton v. Swapp, 484 F. Supp. 958, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8235 (D. Utah 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

484 F. Supp. 958 p.960

762. Cited by:BROWN v. McCORMICK, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16632 (D. Kan. Mar. 30, 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


763. Cited by:In re Moesel, 89 B.R. 895, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1462, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P72626, 19 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 845 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

89 B.R. 895 p.896


764. Cited by:Chavis v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 300 F.3d 1288, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15767, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 876, 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41164 (11th Cir. Ga. 2002)

300 F.3d 1288 p.1293

765. Cited by:Pompey v. Broward County, 95 F.3d 1543, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25009, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 420 (11th Cir. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

95 F.3d 1543 p.1547

766. Cited by:NLRB v. Florida, Dep't of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 868 F.2d 391, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3300, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4790, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3018, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11043 (11th Cir. Fla. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6

868 F.2d 391 p.397

767. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 851 F.2d 1321, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11912 (11th Cir. Ala. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

851 F.2d 1321 p.1339

768. Cited by:In re Temple, 851 F.2d 1269, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10725, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 987 (11th Cir.

Page 102

Ga. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7851 F.2d 1269 p.1272

769. Cited by:Gjellum v. Birmingham, 829 F.2d 1056, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13746 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

829 F.2d 1056 p.1065

770. Cited by:First Alabama Bank, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc., 825 F.2d 1475, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11222 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

825 F.2d 1475 p.1482

771. Cited by:Fetner v. Roanoke, 813 F.2d 1183, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

813 F.2d 1183 p.1184

772. Cited by:Gilmere v. Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23839 (11th Cir. Ga. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

774 F.2d 1495 p.1498

773. Cited by:Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, Div. of United States Steel Corp., 695 F.2d 1314, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31353 (11th Cir. Fla. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

695 F.2d 1314 p.1318

774. Cited by:Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19228 (11th Cir. Ala. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

676 F.2d 524 p.525


775. Cited by:English v. Laidler, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88063 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7


776. Cited by:Frith v. Baldwin County Comm'n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26679 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7


777. Cited by:

Page 103

Johnson v. City of Mobile, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56262 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


778. Cited by:Casale v. Tillman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54226 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7


779. Cited by:Endsley v. City of Macon, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42941 (M.D. Ga. June 2, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


780. Cited by:O'Neal Homes, Inc. v. City of Orange Beach, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39773 (S.D. Ala. May 14, 2008)


781. Cited by:Turbeville v. Office of Child Support Enforcement of Fla. Dep't of Revenue, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68433 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7


782. Cited by:Stoddard v. Hawsey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54544 (S.D. Ala. July 25, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


783. Cited by:Jones v. Allen, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28415 (M.D. Ala. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

483 F. Supp. 2d 1142 p.1148

784. Cited by:Jenkins v. Dekalb County, 242 F.R.D. 652, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18300 (N.D. Ga. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

242 F.R.D. 652 p.658

785. Cited by:Royster v. Florida, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8373 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6


786. Cited by:Wimberly v. Ga. Diagnostic Ctr. & Second Judicial Circuit, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74715 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4


Page 104

787. Cited by:Bank of Am., N.A. v. McCann, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61993, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 44 (N.D. Fla. 2006)

444 F. Supp. 2d 1227 p.1231

788. Cited by:Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31109, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 627 (S.D. Fla. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

430 F. Supp. 2d 1296 p.1327

789. Cited by:Foxworth v. Kia Motors Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18580 (N.D. Fla. May 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6


790. Cited by:Payne v. Dekalb County, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29226 (N.D. Ga. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

414 F. Supp. 2d 1158 p.1169

791. Cited by:Niziol v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Pasco County, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21386 (M.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

240 F. Supp. 2d 1194 p.1203

792. Cited by:Siegel v. LePore, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16305 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2000)


793. Cited by:Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13235 (M.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

111 F. Supp. 2d 1241 p.1244

794. Cited by:Chandler v. James, 985 F. Supp. 1068, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19010 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

985 F. Supp. 1068 p.1071

795. Cited by:Transouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 975 F. Supp. 1305, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13051 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

975 F. Supp. 1305 p.1311

Page 105

796. Cited by:Alabama Parents for Choices v. James, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

797. Cited by:

Wolfe v. Safecard Servs., 873 F. Supp. 648, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 608, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 582 (S.D. Fla. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

873 F. Supp. 648 p.649873 F. Supp. 648 p.650

798. Cited by:Cahela v. Bernard, 155 F.R.D. 233 (N.D. Ga. 1994)

155 F.R.D. 233 p.339

799. Cited by:Gersten v. Rundle, 833 F. Supp. 906, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13589, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 427 (S.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

833 F. Supp. 906 p.910

800. Cited by:Mannings v. School Bd., 816 F. Supp. 714, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2494, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 25 (M.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

816 F. Supp. 714 p.715

801. Cited by:Allstate Ins. Co. v. Preston, 842 F. Supp. 1441, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22138 (S.D. Fla. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

802. Cited by:

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Preston, 842 F. Supp. 1441, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22137 (S.D. Fla. 1992)842 F. Supp. 1441 p.1445

803. Cited by:Page v. Grady, 788 F. Supp. 1207, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4986 (N.D. Ga. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

788 F. Supp. 1207 p.1210

804. Cited by:Williams v. Adkinson, 792 F. Supp. 755, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6344 (M.D. Ala. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

792 F. Supp. 755 p.761

805. Cited by:Westin v. McDaniel, 760 F. Supp. 1563, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4199 (M.D. Ga. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

760 F. Supp. 1563 p.1566

Page 106

806. Cited by:Liedel v. Juvenile Court of Madison County, 707 F. Supp. 486, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2248 (N.D. Ala. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

707 F. Supp. 486 p.493

807. Cited by:LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10598 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

662 F. Supp. 647 p.712

808. Cited by:Safeco Ins. Co. v. Norris & Hirshberg, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 712, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23324 (N.D. Ga. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

640 F. Supp. 712 p.714

809. Cited by:COMPASS INS. CO. v. CATALINA HOMES, INC., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17505 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

810. Cited by:

L.M.E., Inc. v. Hollywood, 605 F. Supp. 185, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21417 (S.D. Fla. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

605 F. Supp. 185 p.188

811. Cited by:Stone Mountain Game Ranch, Inc. v. Hunt, 570 F. Supp. 238, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15846 (N.D. Ga. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

570 F. Supp. 238 p.245

812. Cited by:National Carloading Corp. v. Shulman, 570 F. Supp. 3, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16446 (N.D. Ga. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

570 F. Supp. 3 p.4

813. Cited by:Heath v. Hialeah, 560 F. Supp. 840, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17979 (S.D. Fla. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

560 F. Supp. 840 p.844

814. Cited by:Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F. Supp. 229, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16866 (S.D. Fla. 1981)

525 F. Supp. 229 p.231

815. Cited by:Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F. Supp. 186, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18480, 1983 A.M.C. 966 (S.D. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

525 F. Supp. 186 p.193

Page 107

816. Cited by:Brown v. Morgan County, 518 F. Supp. 661, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14880 (N.D. Ala. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7

518 F. Supp. 661 p.665

817. Cited by:Scherer v. Davis, 543 F. Supp. 4, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18443 (N.D. Fla. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

543 F. Supp. 4 p.13

818. Cited by:Senco of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 473 F. Supp. 902, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526 (M.D. Fla. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

473 F. Supp. 902 p.905

819. Cited by:Craig v. Carson, 449 F. Supp. 385, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18335 (M.D. Fla. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7

449 F. Supp. 385 p.390

820. Cited by:Poirier v. Hodges, 445 F. Supp. 838, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19758 (M.D. Fla. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

445 F. Supp. 838 p.842

821. Cited by:Wall v. American Optometric Asso., 379 F. Supp. 175, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8896 (N.D. Ga. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

379 F. Supp. 175 p.182

822. Cited by:General Corp. v. Sweeton, 365 F. Supp. 1182, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11441 (N.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

365 F. Supp. 1182 p.1184

823. Cited by:Speight v. Slaton, 356 F. Supp. 1101, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14809 (N.D. Ga. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

356 F. Supp. 1101 p.1103

824. Cited by:Davy v. Sullivan, 354 F. Supp. 1320, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14875, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1157 (M.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

354 F. Supp. 1320 p.1324

Page 108

825. Cited by:Abbott v. Thetford, 354 F. Supp. 1280, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15183 (M.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

354 F. Supp. 1280 p.1286

826. Cited by:Anderson v. Dean, 354 F. Supp. 639, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14854 (N.D. Ga. 1973)

354 F. Supp. 639 p.642

827. Cited by:Gilliard v. Carson, 348 F. Supp. 757, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11773 (M.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

348 F. Supp. 757 p.762

828. Cited by:Wiley v. Pomerance, 347 F. Supp. 188, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12286 (S.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

347 F. Supp. 188 p.190


829. Cited by:Rainwater v. Alabama (In re Rainwater), 233 B.R. 126, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

233 B.R. 126 p.152

D.C. CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

830. Cited by:Samuels v. District of Columbia, 770 F.2d 184, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 128, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21078 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

770 F.2d 184 p.194

831. Cited by:United States v. District of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802, 210 U.S. App. D.C. 87, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12455, 16 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1804, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20595 (1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6, HN7

654 F.2d 802 p.809

832. Cited by:Brown v. O'Brien, 469 F.2d 563, 152 U.S. App. D.C. 157, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8617 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

469 F.2d 563 p.574

D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURT

833. Cited by:

Page 109

Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court of the Dist. of Columbia, 539 F. Supp. 2d 432, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24741 (D.D.C. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

539 F. Supp. 2d 432 p.434

834. Cited by:In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 659, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2125 (D.D.C. 1987)

655 F. Supp. 659 p.663

U.S. TAX COURT

835. Cited by:Bent v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 236, 1986 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 74, 87 T.C. No. 15 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

87 T.C. 236 p.246

IRS AGENCY MATERIALS

836. Cited by:Litig. Guide. Mem., 1993 LGM LEXIS 11 (I.R.S. 1993)

1993 LGM LEXIS 11

OTHER FEDERAL DECISIONS

837. Cited by:122 F.R.D. 89, 122 F.R.D. 89

122 F.R.D. 89 p.96

ALASKA SUPREME COURT

838. Cited by:Vest v. Schafer, 757 P.2d 588, 1988 Alas. LEXIS 90, Alaska Adv. 3346 (Alaska 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

757 P.2d 588 p.592

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

839. Cited by:Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 82 Cal. App. 3d 259, 147 Cal. Rptr. 1, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1672 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

82 Cal. App. 3d 259 p.270147 Cal. Rptr. 1 p.7

COLORADO SUPREME COURT

840. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:Middleton v. Hartman, 45 P.3d 721, 2002 Colo. LEXIS 294, 31 Colo. Law. No. 6 251, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34539, 7 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1513 (Colo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

45 P.3d 721 p.736

Page 110

841. Cited by:Board of County Comm'rs v. Sundheim, 926 P.2d 545, 1996 Colo. LEXIS 567, 25 Colo. Law. No. 12 270, 20 Colo. J. 1539 (Colo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

926 P.2d 545 p.54820 Colo. J. 1539 p.1543

842. Cited by:Boulder Valley School Dist. R-2 v. Price, 805 P.2d 1085, 1991 Colo. LEXIS 42, 15 Brief Times Rptr. 103 (Colo. 1991)

805 P.2d 1085 p.1094

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

843. Cited by:Brown v. Davidson, 192 P.3d 415, 2006 Colo. App. LEXIS 1015 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006)

192 P.3d 415 p.418

IDAHO SUPREME COURT

844. Cited by:Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 796 P.2d 87, 1990 Ida. LEXIS 87 (Idaho 1990)

118 Idaho 210 p.221796 P.2d 87 p.98

OTHER INDIANA DECISIONS

845. Cited by:Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 583 N.E.2d 214, 1991 Ind. Tax LEXIS 12 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

583 N.E.2d 214 p.223

LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS

846. Cited by:Ascani v. Hughes, 470 So. 2d 207, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8805 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985)

470 So. 2d 207 p.210

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

847. Cited by:Smith v. State, Dep't of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540, 410 N.W.2d 749, 1987 Mich. LEXIS 8323 (1987)

428 Mich. 540 p.579410 N.W.2d 749 p.766

848. Cited by:In re Weldon, 397 Mich. 225, 244 N.W.2d 827, 1976 Mich. LEXIS 302 (1976)

Page 111

397 Mich. 225 p.312244 N.W.2d 827 p.860

MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT

849. Cited by:Myers v. City of McComb, 943 So. 2d 1, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 537 (Miss. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

943 So. 2d 1 p.10

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS

850. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:E. . State Hosp. v. Callens, 2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 531 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2001)

2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 531

MISSOURI SUPREME COURT

851. Cited by:Shapiro v. Columbia Union Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 576 S.W.2d 310, 1978 Mo. LEXIS 336 (Mo. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

576 S.W.2d 310 p.316

NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION

852. Cited by:General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 279 N.J. Super. 449, 653 A.2d 568, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 69 (App.Div. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

279 N.J. Super. 449 p.461653 A.2d 568 p.574

853. Cited by:In re Kaplan, 178 N.J. Super. 487, 429 A.2d 590, 1981 N.J. Super. LEXIS 541 (App.Div. 1981)

178 N.J. Super. 487 p.498429 A.2d 590 p.596

NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS

854. Cited by:Estate of Gutierrez v. Albuquerque Police Dep't, 104 N.M. 111, 717 P.2d 87, 1986 N.M. App. LEXIS 590 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6

104 N.M. 111 p.116717 P.2d 87 p.92

OTHER NEW YORK DECISIONS

855. Cited by:Brown v. Albion, 128 Misc. 2d 586, 490 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2961 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985)

Page 112

LexisNexis Headnotes HN2128 Misc. 2d 586 p.589490 N.Y.S.2d 958 p.961

856. Cited by:Brody v. Leamy, 90 Misc. 2d 1, 393 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN6, HN7

90 Misc. 2d 1 p.11393 N.Y.S.2d 243 p.251

OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT

857. Cited by:McLin v. Trimble, 1990 OK 74, 795 P.2d 1035, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 64, 61 Okla. B.J. 1633 (Okla. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

795 P.2d 1035 p.1036

OREGON SUPREME COURT

858. Cited by:Rogers v. Saylor, 306 Ore. 267, 760 P.2d 232, 1988 Ore. LEXIS 440 (1988)

306 Ore. 267 p.283760 P.2d 232 p.241

TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

859. Cited by:Saenz v. Lackey, 522 S.W.2d 237, 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 2607, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10145 (Tex. Civ. App. Corpus Christi 1975)

522 S.W.2d 237 p.241

WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT

860. Cited by:Purse Seine Vessel Owners Asso. v. Moos, 88 Wn.2d 799, 567 P.2d 205, 1977 Wash. LEXIS 808, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20091 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN6

88 Wn.2d 799 p.814567 P.2d 205 p.213

WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS

861. Cited by:Fondren v. Klickitat County, 79 Wn. App. 850, 905 P.2d 928, 1995 Wash. App. LEXIS 469 (1995)

79 Wn. App. 850 p.860905 P.2d 928 p.933

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

Page 113

862. Cited by:Shaw v. Leatherberry, 2005 WI 163, 286 Wis. 2d 380, 706 N.W.2d 299, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 949 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2005 WI 163286 Wis. 2d 380 p.399706 N.W.2d 299 p.309

863. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:State ex rel. Hass v. Wis. Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128, 248 Wis. 2d 634, 636 N.W.2d 707, 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 1600 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

2001 WI 128248 Wis. 2d 634 p.649636 N.W.2d 707 p.715

864. Cited by:Hanlon v. Town of Milton, 2000 WI 61, 235 Wis. 2d 597, 612 N.W.2d 44, 2000 Wisc. LEXIS 402 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2000 WI 61235 Wis. 2d 597 p.607612 N.W.2d 44 p.49

865. Cited by:Terry v. Kolski, 78 Wis. 2d 475, 254 N.W.2d 704, 1977 Wisc. LEXIS 1260 (Wis. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

78 Wis. 2d 475 p.508254 N.W.2d 704 p.718

WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS

866. Cited by:State ex rel. Ledford v. Circuit Court, 228 Wis. 2d 768, 599 N.W.2d 45, 1999 Wisc. App. LEXIS 626 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

228 Wis. 2d 768 p.773599 N.W.2d 45 p.47

867. Cited by:Hanson v. Madison Service Corp., 150 Wis. 2d 828, 443 N.W.2d 315, 1989 Wisc. App. LEXIS 511 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7

150 Wis. 2d 828 p.858443 N.W.2d 315 p.327

PUERTO RICO SUPREME COURT

868. Cited by:Perez Aldarondo v. Tribunal Superior, 2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 1, 102 P.R. Dec. 1, 1974 PR Sup. LEXIS 219 (P.R. 1974)

102 P.R. Dec. 1 p.11

Page 114

PUERTO RICO

869. Cited by:2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14

2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14 p.14

ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 3 Citing Statutes )

870. 28 U.S.C. sec. 2283

871. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983

872. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985 LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 461 Citing References )

873. COMMENT: THE USE OF 1983 AS A REMEDY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT: WHY IT IS NECESSARY AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS, 72 Alb. L. Rev. 461 (2009)

72 Alb. L. Rev. 461 p.461

874. ARTICLE: SECTION II: Summary Adjudication Methods in United States Civil Procedure, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 229 (1998)

875. ARTICLE: The Rehnquist Court, Legal Process Theory, and McCleskey v. Kemp, 28 Am. J. Crim. L. 1

(2000)

876. INTERNATIONAL DECISION: United States v. Locke. 120 S.Ct. 1135. Supreme Court of the United States, March 6, 2000, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 745 (2000)

877. ARTICLE: 3ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS AGAINST STATES: ALDEN AND FEDERALISM

NON-SENSE, 49 Am. U.L. Rev. 611 (2000)49 Am. U.L. Rev. 611 p.611

878. NOTE: PULLIAM V. ALLEN: HARMONIZING JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES WITH JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. *, 34 Am. U.L. Rev. 523 (1985)

879. NOTE: THE EXTENSION OF COMITY: FAIR ASSESSMENT IN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION v.

McNARY., 32 Am. U.L. Rev. 1123 (1983)

880. ARTICLE: Sanctioning a Tyranny: The Diminishment of Ex parte Young, Expansion of Hans Immunity, and Denial of Indian Rights in Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 786 (1999)

881. NOTE: Under What Circumstances did Congress Intend to Award Punitive Damages for Victims of

Unlawful Intentional Discrimination under Title VII?, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1269 (1999)40 B.C. L. Rev. 1269 p.1269

882. ARTICLE: THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION: RETHINKING AN UNSETTLED FEDERAL COURTS DOCTRINE *, 36 B.C. L. Rev. 669 (1995)

883. NOTE: REBALANCING FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY: THE OFFENSIVE USE OF COLLATERAL

Page 115

ESTOPPEL IN 1983 ACTIONS, 89 B.U.L. Rev. 1305 (2009)89 B.U.L. Rev. 1305 p.1305

884. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983'S "AND LAWS" CLAUSE RUN AMOK: CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES IN CELLULAR FACILITIES SITING DISPUTES, 81 B.U.L. Rev. 735 (2001)

81 B.U.L. Rev. 735 p.735

885. ARTICLE: THE NEWEST FRONTIER OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: REMOVAL UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 773 (2000)

80 B.U.L. Rev. 773 p.773

886. ARTICLE: DUELING CLASS ACTIONS, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 (2000)80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 p.461

887. COMMENT: WHY PARITY MATTERS., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 651 (1991)

888. ARTICLE: ENDING THE PARITY DEBATE., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 593 (1991)

889. ARTICLE: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TORTS AND THE TAKINGS CLAUSE: FEDERALISM AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY +., 68 B.U.L. Rev. 277 (1988)

890. NOTE: PARRATT v. TAYLOR * REVISITED: DEFINING THE ADEQUATE REMEDY REQUIREMENT.,

65 B.U.L. Rev. 607 (1985)65 B.U.L. Rev. 607 p.607

891. NOTE: SECTION 1983 CHALLENGES TO STATE CONVICTIONS BY PERSONS NOT IN CUSTODY., 64 B.U.L. Rev. 683 (1984)

64 B.U.L. Rev. 683 p.683

892. ARTICLE: Intrinsic Limits of Congress' Power Regarding the Judicial Branch, 1999 BYU L. Rev. 75 (1999)

893. COMMENT: Antisuit Injunctions Under the Complex Litigation Proposal: Harmonizing the Sirens' Song of

Efficiency and Fairness with the Hymn of Judicial Federalism and Comity, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 1041 (1995)

894. COMMENT: Arthur Miller's Death of a Doctrine or Will the Federal Courts Abstain from Abstaining? The Complex Litigation Recommendations' Impact on the Abstention Doctrines, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 961 (1995)

895. ARTICLE: Antisuit Injunction and Notice of Intervention and Preclusion: Complementary Devices to

Prevent Duplicative Litigation, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 925 (1995)

896. ARTICLE: The ALI, Supplemental Jurisdiction, and the Federal Constitutional Case, 1995 BYU L. Rev. 819 (1995)

897. ARTICLE: Parallel Litigation *, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 769 (1999)

898. ARTICLE: *42<**IC=109**>USC<**IC=109**>1983 *001983 The Vehicle for ProtectingPublic

Employees' Constitutional Rights *, 47 Baylor L. Rev. 619 (1995)

Page 116

899. ARTICLE: Title VII Arbitration, 16 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 209 (1995)

900. ARTICLE: The Sovereign Immunity of States in Their Own Courts, 37 Brandeis L.J. 319 (1999)37 Brandeis L.J. 319 p.319

901. NOTE: Dismissing the Foster Children The Eleventh Circuit's Misapplication and Improper Expansion of the Younger Abstention Doctrine in Bonnie L. v. Bush *, 70 Brook. L. Rev. 635 (2004)

70 Brook. L. Rev. 635 p.635

902. ARTICLE: Facilitating Welfare Rights Class Action Litigation: PUTTING DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO WORK *, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 281 (2003)

69 Brook. L. Rev. 281 p.281

903. ARTICLE: HOW THE SUPREME COURT IS DEALING WITH PRECEDENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES *, 62 Brook. L. Rev. 973 (1996)

62 Brook. L. Rev. 973 p.973

904. ARTICLE: BEYOND PARITY: SECTION 1983 AND THE STATE COURTS., 54 Brook. L. Rev. 1057 (1989)

905. THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW -- 1983-1984 TERM: PART I: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BEFORE A NEUTRAL JUDGE: FEDERALISM TIPS THE BALANCE AGAINST STATE HABEAS PETITIONERS. Johnson v. Scully. *, 51 Brook. L. Rev. 841 (1985)

906. NOTE: MECHANICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE CERTIFICATION OF

MANDATORY MULTISTATE MASS TORT CLASS ACTIONS UNDER RULE 23., 49 Brook. L. Rev. 517 (1983)

907. ARTICLE: Restricting Prisoners' Equal Access to the Federal Courts: The Three Strikes Provision of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act and Substantive Equal Protection, 49 Buff. L. Rev. 1099 (2001)49 Buff. L. Rev. 1099 p.1099

908. COMMENT: Federal Court Abstention in Civil Rights Cases: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the New Doctrine of Civil Rights Abstention, 42 Buff. L. Rev. 501 (1994)

42 Buff. L. Rev. 501 p.501

909. Article: The Federal Courts as a Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 95 (2009)

97 Cal. L. Rev. 95 p.95

910. ARTICLE: Structural Reform Revisited, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 1387 (2007)95 Cal. L. Rev. 1387 p.1387

911. Pendent Jurisdiction and the Eleventh Amendment., 75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 (1987)75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 p.155

912. ARTICLE: Rediscovering "One Constitutional Case": Procedural Rules and the Rejection of the Gibbs Test

Page 117

for Supplemental Jurisdiction., 71 Cal. L. Rev. 1401 (1983)

913. 71 Cal. L. Rev. 1399, 71 Cal. L. Rev. 139971 Cal. L. Rev. 1399 p.1406

914. 69 Cal. L. Rev. 37769 Cal. L. Rev. 377 p.418

915. 69 Cal. L. Rev. 18969 Cal. L. Rev. 189 p.193

916. ARTICLE: MORE STORIES OF JURISDICTION-STRIPPING AND EXECUTIVE POWER: INTERPRETING THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (PLRA), 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 291 (2007)

917. NOTE: Federal Rights, Federal Forum: Section 1983 Challenges to State Convictions in Federal Court, 51

Case W. Res. L. Rev. 353 (2000)51 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 353 p.353

918. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers *: The Humble and the Treasonous: Judge-Made Jurisdiction Law, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1035 (1990)

919. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers

*: Judge-Made Abstention and the Fashionable Art of "Democracy Bashing" n1, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1023 (1990)

920. SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers

*: "You Can Lead a Horse to Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal to Allow the Exercise of Original Jurisdiction Conferred by Congress, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 997 (1990)

921. THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION: A SYMPOSIUM:

Thinking about Habeas Corpus, 37 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 748 (1987)

922. NOTE: Parens Patriae Suits by a State Under, 33 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 431 (1983)

923. NOTE: PULLIAM v. ALLEN: DELINEATING THE IMMUNITY OF JUDGES FROM PROSPECTIVE RELIEF., 34 Cath. U.L. Rev. 829 (1985)

924. SYMPOSIUM ON SECTION 1983: STUDENT NOTES AND COMMENTS: HOW FAR IS TOO FAR:

ANALYZING THE COLLATERAL LAW APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT SECTION 1983 LITIGATION, 72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 875 (1997)

72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 875 p.875

925. STUDEN NOTE AND COMMENT: THE DIFFUSION OF DUE PROCESS IN CAPITAL CASES OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE AFTER HERRERA, 70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1391 (1995)

70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1391 p.1391

926. NOTE: AN APPLICATION OF TO SECTION 1983 ACTIONS: DOES RULE 26(A)(1) VIOLATE THE RULES ENABLING ACT?, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 115 (1995)

Page 118

927. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983 LITIGATION IN THE OHIO COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION FOR OHIO LAWYERS AND JUDGES, 41 Clev. St. L. Rev. 407 (1993)

928. Article: "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings": The Procedural Nature of Comprehensive-Remedial-Scheme

Preclusion in 1983 Claims, 42 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 415 (2009)

929. NOTE: FROM THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL TORT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 643 (2006)

106 Colum. L. Rev. 643 p.643

930. ARTICLE: UNDER THE LAW OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION: ALLOCATING CASES BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1211 (2004)

104 Colum. L. Rev. 1211 p.1211

931. ARTICLE: MADISONIAN EQUAL PROTECTION, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 837 (2004)104 Colum. L. Rev. 837 p.837

932. NOTE: THE SENTENCES THAT BIND (THE STATES), 103 Colum. L. Rev. 969 (2003)103 Colum. L. Rev. 969 p.969

933. ARTICLE: SQUARE PEGS AND ROUND HOLES: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 833 (2003)

103 Colum. L. Rev. 833 p.833

934. RESPONSE: HABEAS CORPUS, RELITIGATION, AND THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 888 (1998)

98 Colum. L. Rev. 888 p.919

935. ARTICLE: "SOME EFFECTUAL POWER": THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF DECISIONMAKING REQUIRED OF ARTICLE III COURTS, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 696 (1998)

98 Colum. L. Rev. 696 p.781

936. ARTICLE: EQUAL CITIZENS OF EQUAL AND TERRITORIAL STATES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF CHOICE OF LAW., 92 Colum. L. Rev. 249 (1992)

92 Colum. L. Rev. 249 p.333

937. NOTE: THE PREEMPTION DIMENSION OF ABSTENTION., 89 Colum. L. Rev. 310 (1989)

938. ARTICLE: PROCEDURAL COMMON LAW, FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL POLICY, AND ABANDONMENT OF THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE., 86 Colum. L. Rev. 1291 (1986)

86 Colum. L. Rev. 1291 p.1319

939. BOOK REVIEW: THE FEDERAL COURTS, JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ANALYZING LEGAL DOCTRINE. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. BY Richard A. Posner., 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1378 (1985)

Page 119

940. NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED CONDUCT OF STATE OFFICIALS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT: HUDSON V. PALMER AND THE RESURRECTION OF DEAD DOCTRINES., 85 Colum. L. Rev. 837 (1985)

941. NOTE: Preclusion of Section 1983 Causes of Action by Comprehensive Statutory Remedial Schemes, 82

Colum. L. Rev. 1183 (1982)

942. 78 Colum. L. Rev. 33078 Colum. L. Rev. 330 p.331

943. 78 Colum. L. Rev. 7578 Colum. L. Rev. 75 p.95

944. ARTICLE: Alternative State Remedies in Constitutional Torts, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 (2008)40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 p.723

945. NOTE: The Forgotten Empire: Pre-Civil War Southern Imperialism, 36 Conn. L. Rev. 225 (2003)36 Conn. L. Rev. 225 p.225

946. ARTICLE: The Unhappy History of Civil Rights Legislation, Fifty Years Later, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 981 (2002)34 Conn. L. Rev. 981 p.981

947. ARTICLE: Remedies for Unconstitutional State Taxes, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 73 (2000)32 Conn. L. Rev. 73 p.73

948. ARTICLE: The Anticommandeering Principle and Congress's Power to Direct State Judicial Action: Congress's Power to Compel State Courts to Answer Certified Questions of State Law, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 649 (1999)

949. NOTE AND COMMENT: From Animal House to No House: Legal Rights of the Banned Fraternity, 28

Conn. L. Rev. 167 (1995)

950. BOOK REVIEW: CHALLENGING THE HART AND WECHSLER PARADIGM, 27 Conn. L. Rev. 833 (1995)

951. Article: Separation of Powers and the Exercise of Concurrent Constitutional Authority in the Bivens

Context, 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 171 (2009)

952. NOTE: PRISONER LITIGATION AND THE MISTAKE OF JENKINS V. HAUBERT, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 140 (2000)

86 Cornell L. Rev. 140 p.140

953. NOTE: SLOGAN OR SUBSTANCE? UNDERSTANDING "OUR FEDERALISM" AND YOUNGER ABSTENTION., 73 Cornell L. Rev. 852 (1988)

954. ARTICLE: FLOWCHARTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT., 72 Cornell L. Rev. 936 (1987)


Page 120

955. 71 Cornell L. Rev. 733, 71 Cornell L. Rev. 73371 Cornell L. Rev. 733 p.818

956. ARTICLE: INTERJURISDICTIONAL PRECLUSION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND FEDERAL COMMON LAW: A GENERAL APPROACH. $(Part 2 of 2$), 71 Cornell L. Rev. 733 (1986)

957. 67 Cornell L. Rev. 482


958. 63 Cornell L. Rev. 46363 Cornell L. Rev. 463 p.466



961. ARTICLE: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: JUSTICE BRADLEY'S TWENTIETH CENTURY LEGACY, 29 Cumb. L. Rev. 143 (1998)

962. SYMPOSIUM: THE FEDERALIZATION OF STATE LAW: ARTICLE: FEDERALIZATION: A CRITICAL

OVERVIEW, 44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 (1995)44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 p.719

963. ARTICLE: "PUN'S OIL SUES TOXICO": A COMEDY OF ERRORS IN (AT LEAST) FOUR ACTS. *, 11 Del. J. Corp. L. 345 (1987)

964. SURVEY: Section 1983 and the Tort of Malicious Prosecution: A Tenth Circuit Historical Analysis, 82

Denv. U.L. Rev. 499 (2005)82 Denv. U.L. Rev. 499 p.499

965. ARTICLE: The Integration of State Private Law in Federalized Fields of Law: The Case for Federal Common Law, 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 207 (1996)

966. ARTICLE: Habeas Corpus: The No-Longer Great Writ, 98 Dick. L. Rev. 557 (1994)

967. 54 Disp. Resol. J. No. 4 48

54 Disp. Resol. J. No. 4 48 p.51

968. ARTICLE: HAS THE SEDUCTIVE SIREN OF JUDICIAL FRUGALITY CEASED TO SING?: DATAFLUX AND ITS FAMILY TREE, 53 Drake L. Rev. 281 (2005)

53 Drake L. Rev. 281 p.281

Page 121

969. FEATURED SPEAKERS: CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION: A RESPONSE TO GARVEY, 47 Drake L. Rev. 19 (1998)

970. ARTICLE: A REASSESSMENT OF THE YOUNGER DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE

HISTORY OF RECONSTRUCTION., 1983 Duke L.J. 987 (1983)

971. NOTE: THE PATH TO PRECLUSION: FEDERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST NATIONWIDE CLASSES IN STATE COURT, 54 Duke L.J. 221 (2004)

54 Duke L.J. 221 p.221

972. RECENT DECISION: Cooperation Between Law Enforcement and State Hospitals in Warrantless, Nonconsensual Drug Testing of Maternity Patients is Unconstitutional Under the Fourth Amendment: Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 743 (2002)

40 Duq. L. Rev. 743 p.743

973. ARTICLE: The Privatization of the Civil Commitment Process and the State Action Doctrine: Have the Mentally Ill Been Systematically Stripped of Their Fourteenth Amendment Rights?, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 1 (2001)

40 Duq. L. Rev. 1 p.1

974. COMMENT: THE CASE OF EXZAVIOUS LEE GIBSON: A GEORGIA COURT'S (CONSTITUTIONAL?) DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT, 47 Emory L.J. 1079 (1998)

975. THE FINAL FRONTIER OF YOUNGER ABSTENTION: THE JUDICIARY'S ABDICATION OF THE

FEDERAL COURT REMOVAL JURISDICTION STATUTE, 31 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 193 (2003)31 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 193 p.193

976. COMMENT: THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE: FEDERALISM, UNIFORMITY, EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, 16 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 365 (1988)

977. ARTICLE: THE SUPREME COURT, THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, AND THE USE AND

ABUSE OF FEDERALISM, 71 Fordham L. Rev. 57 (2002)71 Fordham L. Rev. 57 p.57

978. SYMPOSIUM: BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ITS LEGACY: A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL: PANEL II: CIVIL RIGHTS AND EDUCATION AFTER BROWN. THE OVERTHROW OF MONROE v. PAPE: A CHAPTER IN THE LEGACY OF THURGOOD MARSHALL., 61 Fordham L. Rev. 39 (1992)

979. ARTICLE: EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE PROCEDURAL BAR DOCTRINE IN FEDERAL HABEAS

CORPUS., 59 Fordham L. Rev. 737 (1991)

980. ARTICLE: MAKING YOUNGER CIVIL: THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL COURT DEFERENCE TO STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR STRAVITZ., 58 Fordham L. Rev. 173 (1989)

981. ARTICLE: YOUNGER ABSTENTION REACHES A CIVIL MATURITY: PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC.,

57 Fordham L. Rev. 997 (1989)

982. NOTE: LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER 1415 OF THE EDUCATION FOR

Page 122

ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975., 56 Fordham L. Rev. 725 (1988)

983. NOTE: THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF ARBITRAL DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL SECURITIES LITIGATION., 55 Fordham L. Rev. 655 (1987)

984. NOTE: IMMUNITY DOCTRINES AND EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS OF JUDGES., 55 Fordham L. Rev.

621 (1987)

985. NOTE: STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CIVIL RICO ACTIONS AFTER WILSON v. GARCIA., 55 Fordham L. Rev. 529 (1987)

986. NOTE: WILSON v. GARCIA AND STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS:

RETROACTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION?, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 363 (1986)

987. ARTICLE: EVOLUTION OF THE "SPECIES OF TORT LIABILITY" CREATED BY CAN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT BE SAVED FROM EXTINCTION?, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (1986)

988. NOTE: CRIMINAL RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS AS DEBTS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CODE., 54

Fordham L. Rev. 869 (1986)

989. COMMENT: TEXACO INC. v. PENNZOIL CO.: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL COURT POWER OVER STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 54 Fordham L. Rev. 767 (1986)

990. NOTE: DUE PROCESS: APPLICATION OF THE PARRATT DOCTRINE TO RANDOM AND

UNAUTHORIZED DEPRIVATIONS OF LIFE AND LIBERTY., 52 Fordham L. Rev. 887 (1984)

991. ARTICLE: EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT: WHAT A PLAINTIFF "KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW" BASED ON OFFICIALS' STATEMENTS AND MEDIA COVERAGE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT FOR NOTICE OF A 1983 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY CLAIM, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 505 (2000)

992. FELIX FRANKFURTER: THE ARCHITECT OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 27 Ga. L. Rev. 697 (1993)

993. ARTICLE: Is Disparity a Problem?, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988)

994. FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS:

ARTICLE: Why Professor Redish is Wrong About Abstention, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1097 (1985)

995. FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS: ARTICLE: Supreme Court Review of State Court "Federal" Decisions: A Study in Interactive Federalism, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 861 (1985)

996. ARTICLE: Exploring the Interface Between Rule 23 Class Actions and the Anti-Injunction Act, 18 Ga. L.

Rev. 259 (1984)

997. ARTICLE: TWENTY QUESTIONS (OR THE HARDEST COURSE IN LAW SCHOOL), 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 497 (2001)

18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 497 p.497

998. THE CITY COURT OF ATLANTA AND THE 1983 GEORGIA CONSTITUTION: IS THE JUDICIAL ENGINE SOUPED UP OR BLOWN UP?, 15 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 941 (1999)

999. ARTICLE: The Truth Be Damned: The First Amendment, Attorney Speech, and Judicial Reputation, 97 Geo.

L.J. 1567 (2009)97 Geo. L.J. 1567 p.1567

Page 123

1000. SYMPOSIUM: CONGRESS AND THE COURTS: JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES: Introduction: Congressional Control of Jurisdiction and the Future of the Federal Courts -- Opposition, Agreement, and Hierarchy, 86 Geo. L.J. 2445 (1998)

86 Geo. L.J. 2445 p.2445

1001. NOTE: Staying Death Penalty Executions: An Empirical Analysis of Changing Judicial Attitudes, 84 Geo. L.J. 2543 (1996)

1002. SYMPOSIUM: "Economic Rights," Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983., 77 Geo.

L.J. 1493 (1989)77 Geo. L.J. 1493 p.1540

1003. NOTE: Section 1983 and the Independent Contractor., 74 Geo. L.J. 457 (1985) 1004. BOOK REVIEW: The World According to Judge Posner. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND

REFORM by Richard A. Posner, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985. Pp. xvii, 365. $ 25.00., 73 Geo. L.J. 1507 (1985)

1005. 65 Geo. L.J. 1483

65 Geo. L.J. 1483 p.1484

1006. ARTICLE: The Intended Relationship Between Administrative Regulations and Section 1983's"Laws", 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 51 (1998)

1007. NOTE: Malicious Prosecution Claims Under Section 1983: Do Citizens Have Federal Recourse?, 64 Geo.

Wash. L. Rev. 776 (1996) 1008. ARTICLE: When Federalism and Separation of Powers Collide -- Rethinking Younger Abstention., 59 Geo.

Wash. L. Rev. 114 (1990) 1009. ESSAY: Moral Ambition, Formalism, and the "Free World" of DeShaney., 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1513

(1989) 1010. NOTE: THE MILITIA CLAUSES, THE NATIONAL GUARD, AND FEDERALISM: A CONSTITUTIONAL

TUG OF WAR. *, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 328 (1988) 1011. ARTICLE: CLEANING UP ONE MESS TO CREATE ANOTHER: DUPLICATIVE CLASS ACTIONS,

FEDERAL COURTS' INJUNCTIVE POWER, AND THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005, 29 Hamline L. Rev. 218 (2006)

1012. ARTICLE: The Constitutional Tort Action as Individual Remedy, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393 (2003)

1013. ARTICLE: ALDEN TRILOGY: PRAISE AND PROTEST, 23 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 323 (2000)

1014. LEADING CASE: F. Tax Injunction Act, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 486 (2004)

118 Harv. L. Rev. 486 p.486

1015. BOOK REVIEW: MINING IN HARD GROUND THE MINER'S CANARY. By Lani Guinier & Gerald Torres., 116 Harv. L. Rev. 2487 (2003)

Page 124

116 Harv. L. Rev. 2487 p.2487

1016. NOTE: FEDERAL COURT INVOLVEMENT IN REDISTRICTING LITIGATION, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 878 (2001)

114 Harv. L. Rev. 878 p.878

1017. LEADING CASES: I. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Continued, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 296 (1999)113 Harv. L. Rev. 296 p.296

1018. RECENT CASES: Federal Civil Procedure - Sixth Circuit Holds That Federal Court Should Abstain From Deciding a Nonparty's First Amendment Challenge to a State Court Injunction. - Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, Inc., 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998)., 112 Harv. L. Rev. 976 (1999)

112 Harv. L. Rev. 976 p.976

1019. ARTICLE: DECONSTITUTIONALIZING JUSTICIABILITY: THE EXAMPLE OF MOOTNESS., 105 Harv. L. Rev. 605 (1992)

1020. 105 Harv. L. Rev. 603, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 603

105 Harv. L. Rev. 603 p.621

1021. Leading Cases, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 (1991)105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 p.177

1022. THE SUPREME COURT, 1990 TERM: LEADING CASES., 105 Harv. L. Rev. 177 (1991) 1023. THE SUPREME COURT, 1989 TERM: LEADING CASES: III. FEDERAL STATUTES AND

REGULATIONS; B. Civil Rights Law., 104 Harv. L. Rev. 339 (1990)104 Harv. L. Rev. 339 p.339

1024. NOTE: CLARIFYING COMITY: STATE COURT JURISDICTION AND SECTION 1983 STATE TAX CHALLENGES, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1888 (1990)

103 Harv. L. Rev. 1888 p.1888

1025. NOTE: FORUM SHOPPING RECONSIDERED., 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1677 (1990)103 Harv. L. Rev. 1677 p.1677

1026. ARTICLE: HOW TO BUILD A SEPARATE SPHERE: FEDERAL COURTS AND STATE POWER., 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1485 (1987)

100 Harv. L. Rev. 1485 p.1487

1027. BOOK REVIEW: TAKING BUREAUCRACY SERIOUSLY. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. By Richard A. Posner. n1, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 344 (1985)

99 Harv. L. Rev. 344 p.344

Page 125

1028. BOOK REVIEW: AN ACTIVISM OF AMBIVALENCE THE BURGER COURT: THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION THAT WASN'T. Edited by Vincent Blasi. n1, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 (1984)

98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 p.315

1029. THE SUPREME COURT, 1981 TERM: II. FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 196 (1982)

96 Harv. L. Rev. 196 p.196

1030. 93 Harv. L. Rev. 46593 Harv. L. Rev. 465 p.501



1033. DEDICATION TO PROFESSOR RAY FORRESTER: ARTICLE: Privileges or Immunities: The Missing Link in Establishing Congressional Power to Abrogate State Eleventh Amendment Immunity, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 235 (2001)

1034. ARTICLE: The Missing Pieces of the Debate Over Federal Property Rights Legislation, 27 Hastings Const.

L.Q. 1 (1999) 1035. ARTICLE: Reconsidering the Artful Pleading Doctrine., 44 Hastings L.J. 273 (1993)

1036. NOTE: A Reexamination of the Non-Dischargeability of Criminal Restitutive Obligations in Chapter 13

Bankruptcies., 43 Hastings L.J. 1517 (1992) 1037. ARTICLE: Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction., 35

Hastings L.J. 571 (1984) 1038. ARTICLE: DISADVANTAGED BY DESIGN: HOW THE LAW INHIBITS AGRICULTURAL GUEST

WORKERS FROM ENFORCING THEIR RIGHTS, 18 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 575 (2001) 1039. NOTE: CATERPILLAR INC. V. LEWIS: HARMLESS ERROR APPLIED TO REMOVAL JURISDICTION *,

35 Hous. L. Rev. 601 (1998) 1040. COMMENT: STUDENTS HURTING STUDENTS: WHO WILL PAY? *, 34 Hous. L. Rev. 579 (1997)

1041. COMMENT: JUDICIAL GAP-FILLING IN WARN CLAIMS: THE UNCERTAINTY CONTINUES, 32 Hous.

L. Rev. 1125 (1995) 1042. Second Annual Vinson & Elkins LLP/Howard Law Journal Symposium: Article: Pleading Civil Rights

Claims in the Post-Conley Era, 52 How. L.J. 99 (2008)52 How. L.J. 99 p.99

1043. COMMENT: Stretching the Civil Rights Statutes Too Far: Telecommunications Service Providers Should Not Receive Compensation Under Civil Rights Statute 1983 for Violations of the Telecommunications Act of

Page 126

1996, 46 How. L.J. 581 (2003)46 How. L.J. 581 p.581

1044. COMMENT: Federal Court Remedies: The Creative Use Of Potential Remedies Can Produce Institutional Change., 27 How. L.J. 879 (1984)

27 How. L.J. 879 p.879

1045. ARTICLE: Reevaluating Substantive Due Process as a Source of Protection for Psychiatric Patients to Refuse Drugs, 31 Ind. L. Rev. 937 (1998)

31 Ind. L. Rev. 937 p.937

1046. Bringing in the State: Toward a Constitutional Duty to Protect from Mob Violence+, 79 Ind. L.J. 177 (2004)

79 Ind. L.J. 177 p.177

1047. ARTICLE: A Limitation Period with Real Limitations, 69 Ind. L.J. 477 (1994) 1048. ARTICLE: Symmetries of Access in Civil Rights Litigation: Politics, Pragmatism and Will, 66 Ind. L.J. 1

(1990) 1049. ARTICLE: In Lieu of Preclusion: Reconciling Administrative Decisionmaking and Federal Civil Rights

Claims +, 65 Ind. L.J. 367 (1990) 1050. ARTICLE: Letting Go of the Eleventh Amendment, 64 Ind. L.J. 601 (1989)

1051. SYMPOSIUM: Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation, 62 Ind. L.J. 507 (1987)

62 Ind. L.J. 507 p.507

1052. ARTICLE: State Antitrust in the Federal Scheme +, 58 Ind. L.J. 375 (1983) 1053. ARTICLE: State Court Judgments in Federal Litigation: Mapping the Contours of Full Faith and Credit, 58

Ind. L.J. 59 (1982) 1054. COMMENT: Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.: The Continuing Saga of the Younger Doctrine, 82

Iowa L. Rev. 275 (1996)82 Iowa L. Rev. 275 p.275

1055. COMMENT: Doctrinal Foundations of Section 1983 and the Resurgent Dormant Commerce Clause, 77 Iowa L. Rev. 1249 (1992)

77 Iowa L. Rev. 1249 p.1249

1056. ARTICLE: Monell, Parratt, Daniels, and Davidson: Distinguishing a Custom or Policy from a Random, Unauthorized Act, 72 Iowa L. Rev. 101 (1986)

1057. COMMENT: Municipal Liability Under Section 1983: Rethinking the "Policy or Custom" Standard After

City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 (1986)71 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 p.1209

Page 127

1058. ARTICLE: Exhaustion of Grievance Procedures for State Prisoners Under Section 1997e of the Civil Rights Act, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 935 (1986)

1059. ARTICLE: The Unhappy History of Federal Question Removal, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 717 (1986)

1060. COMMENT: Claim Preclusion and Section 1983 Civil Rights Actions: Migra v. Warren City School District

Board of Education, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 287 (1984)70 Iowa L. Rev. 287 p.287

1061. ARTICLE: PERIMETER RULES, PROPRIETARY POWERS, AND THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT: A TALE OF TWO CITIES ... AND TWO AIRPORTS, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 223 (2000)

1062. COMMENT: Criminal Law: Racially-Motivated Violence and Intimidation: Inadequate State Enforcement

and Federal Civil Rights Remedies, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 103 (1984) 1063. NOTE AND COMMENT: A Fresh Look at a Stale Doctrine: How Public Policy and the Tenets of Piercing

the Corporate Veil Dictate the Inapplicability of the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine to the Civil Rights Arena, 3 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 131 (2008)

1064. ARTICLE: FEDERALISM: THE IMPRECISE CALCULUS OF DUAL SOVEREIGNTY, 35 J. Marshall L.

Rev. 1 (2001)35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 p.1

1065. ARTICLE: Civil Rights are Civil Rights are Civil Rights: The Inapplicability of Preclusion to Unreviewed State Administrative Decisions, 20 J. NAALJ 199 (2000)

1066. ARTICLE: Fair Play: The Tension Between an Athletic Association's Regulatory Power and Free Speech

Rights of Member Schools - The Practical Implications of Tennessee v. Brentwood, 28 J. Nat'l Ass'n L. Jud. 237 (2008)

1067. ESSAY: Justice Charles M. Leibson and the Revival of State Constitutional Law: A Microcosm of a

Movement, 86 Ky. L.J. 1009 (1998)86 Ky. L.J. 1009 p.1009

1068. 63 La. L. Rev. 785, 63 La. L. Rev. 78563 La. L. Rev. 785 p.785



1071. 56 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 10556 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 3 105 p.108

1072. 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 1 201

Page 128

55 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 1 201 p.208



1075. SYMPOSIUM: Brown II: Ordinary Remedies for Extraordinary Wrongs, 24 Law & Ineq. J. 47 (2006) 1076. REVIEW ESSAYS: Reconsidering the Frankfurterian Paradigm: Reflections on Histories of Lower Federal

Courts, 24 Law & Soc. Inquiry 679 (1999) 1077. COMMENT: A CONVICTION CORRECTION PROCEDURE: FINALITY, FEDERALISM, AND POST-

CONVICTION ACCESS TO DNA EVIDENCE THROUGH, 54 Loy. L. Rev. 674 (2008)54 Loy. L. Rev. 674 p.674

1078. FIFTH CIRCUIT SYMPOSIUM: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, 46 Loy. L. Rev. 1029 (2000)

46 Loy. L. Rev. 1029 p.1029

1079. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION*: THE ANTI-INJUNCTION AND ALL WRITS ACT IN COMPLEX LITIGATION, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 (2004)

37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 p.1603

1080. SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: IN THE MEANTIME: STATE PROTECTION OF DISABILITY CIVIL RIGHTS, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1065 (2004)

37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1065 p.1065

1081. COMMENT: EMPLOYING THE SECTION 5 ENFORCEMENT POWER TO GUARANTEE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE STATE COURTS, 85 Marq. L. Rev. 1025 (2002)

85 Marq. L. Rev. 1025 p.1025

1082. ESSAY: Proposals to Amend the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., 29 McGeorge L. Rev. 825 (1998) 1083. THE MARYLAND SURVEY: 1994-1995: Recent Decision: The United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit: Civil Rights, 55 Md. L. Rev. 921 (1996) 1084. ARTICLE: WANTED: A FEDERAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING THE ADEQUATE STATE FORUM,

50 Md. L. Rev. 131 (1991) 1085. ARTICLE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS, 45 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1986)

1086. ARTICLE: Mt. Healthy and Causation-in-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't Get It!, 51 Mercer L. Rev. 603

(2000) 1087. NOTE: Proximate Cause in Constitutional Torts: Holding Interrogators Liable for Fifth Amendment

Page 129

Violations at Trial, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1551 (2007)105 Mich. L. Rev. 1551 p.1551

1088. NOTES: Removal and the Eleventh Amendment: The Case for District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid a Bifurcated Suit, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (1993)

92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 p.683

1089. ARTICLE: A REVISIONIST THEORY OF ABSTENTION. $(+$), 88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 (1989)88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 p.538

1090. 1989 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW; VI. CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS: A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERAL LAW AND SOUTHERN ORDER: RACIAL VIOLENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IN THE POST-BROWN SOUTH. By Michal Belknap., 87 Mich. L. Rev. 1599 (1989)

87 Mich. L. Rev. 1599 p.1599

1091. NOTE: Dormant Commerce Clause Claims Under Protecting the Right To Be Free of Protectionist State Action, 86 Mich. L. Rev. 157 (1987)

86 Mich. L. Rev. 157 p.157

1092. NOTE: Class Actions for Punitive Damages., 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 (1983)81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 p.1787

1093. 79 Mich. L. Rev. 148579 Mich. L. Rev. 1485 p.1491

1094. 79 Mich. L. Rev. 579 Mich. L. Rev. 5 p.24

1095. ARTICLE: Shedding New Light on an Old Debate: A Federal Indian Law Perspective on Congressional Authority to Limit Federal Question Jurisdiction., 75 Minn. L. Rev. 65 (1990)

75 Minn. L. Rev. 65 p.104

1096. COMMENT: San Bernardino Physicians' Services Medical Group, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino: Constitutionally Protected Public Contract Property Interests Under, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 879 (1990)

74 Minn. L. Rev. 879 p.879

1097. ARTICLE: Speedy Criminal Appeal: A Right Without A Remedy., 74 Minn. L. Rev. 437 (1990)74 Minn. L. Rev. 437 p.493

1098. NOTE: Amending a Statute of Limitations for More Than "A Half Measure of Uniformity"., 73 Minn. L. Rev. 85 (1988)

73 Minn. L. Rev. 85 p.85

Page 130

1099. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND CIVIL RIGHTS SYMPOSIUM, PART II: ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IN US AND IN OUR POSTERITY, 68 Miss. L.J. 565 (1998)

1100. ARTICLE: Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity, 64 Mo. L. Rev. 123 (1999)

64 Mo. L. Rev. 123 p.123

1101. SYMPOSIUM: LOCATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CENTER CENTRIST JUDGES AND MAINSTREAM VALUES: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY EXPLORATION: "Meet the New Boss": The New Judicial Center, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 1205 (2005)

83 N.C. L. Rev. 1205 p.1205

1102. NOTE: O'Sullivan v. Boerckel and the Default of State Prisoners' Federal Claims: Comity or Tragedy?, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1604 (2000)

1103. Civil Rights Plaintiffs, Clogged Courts, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court

Takes a Look at Heightened Pleading Standards in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 72 N.C. L. Rev. 1085 (1994)

1104. ARTICLE: THE RIGHT TO AVOID TRIAL: JUSTIFYING FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION INTO

ONGOING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 66 N.C. L. Rev. 49 (1987) 1105. ARTICLE: FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND SECTION 1983: A REAPPRAISAL., 63 N.C. L. Rev. 59

(1984) 1106. COMMENT: Heck v. Humphrey: What Should State Prisoners Use When Seeking Damages from State

Officials . . . Section 1983 or Federal Habeas Corpus?, 22 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 109 (1996) 1107. ARTICLE: OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE OLD: RECONSIDERING THE ANALYTICAL

FRAMEWORK FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS CREATED IN CORTEZ V. MCCAULEY, 38 N.M. L. Rev. 587 (2008)

38 N.M. L. Rev. 587 p.587

1108. ARTICLE: FEDERAL COURTS, STATE POWER, AND INDIAN TRIBES: CONFRONTING THE WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2005)

35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 p.1

1109. IV. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT: RACE AND THE CONSTITUTION, 45 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 101 (2001)

45 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 101 p.101

1110. NOTE: FEDERAL COURT ABSTENTION AND THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 421 (2004)

79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 421 p.421

1111. NOTE: AVOIDING THE RACE TO RES JUDICATA: FEDERAL ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS OF COMPETING STATE CLASS ACTIONS, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1085 (2000)

Page 131

1112. SYMPOSIUM: THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON

CLASS ACTIONS: CLASS ACTIONS AND JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTIONS, 71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 (1996)

71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 p.532

1113. NOTE: NEW YORK CORRECTION LAWSECTION 24: NO BARTO PRISONERS' RIGHTS, 70 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 326 (1995)

1114. NOTES JANUS WAS NOT A GOD OF JUSTICE: REALIGNMENT OF PARTIES IN DIVERSITY

JURISDICTION, 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1072 (1993) 1115. ARTICLE: THE MISGUIDED SEARCH FOR STATE INTEREST IN ABSTENTION CASES:

OBSERVATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF PENNZOIL V. TEXACO., 63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1051 (1988)63 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1051 p.1056

1116. ARTICLE: EXPLAINING HABEAS CORPUS., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 (1985)60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 p.1027

1117. ARTICLE: JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 (1985)60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 p.576

1118. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983 AND FEDERAL PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS -- WILL THE STATUTE REMAIN ALIVE OF FADE AWAY?, 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1985)

60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.6

1119. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: APPENDIX: CIVIL PROCEDURE APPENDIX., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1483 (1984)

1120. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: NOTE: IDENTIFICATION, TOLERABILITY,

AND RESOLUTION OF INTERCIRCUIT CONFLICTS: REEXAMINING PROFESSOR FEENEY'S STUDY OF CONFLICTS IN FEDERAL LAW., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1007 (1984)

1121. ARTICLE: OF JUSTICIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND PUBLIC LAW LITIGATION: NOTES ON THE

JURISPRUDENCE OF LYONS., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1984)59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.5

1122. 49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 109249 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1092 p.1109

1123. 49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 74049 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 740 p.845

1124. Article: Fee Shifting and Sovereign Immunity After Seminole Tribe n1, 88 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (2009)88 Neb. L. Rev. 1 p.1

Page 132

1125. The Anti-Injunction Act: Fending Off the New Attack on the Relitigation Exception, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 643 (1993)

1126. The 1990 Federal "Fallback" Statute of Limitations: Limitations by Default *, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 454 (1993)

1127. NOTE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 1983: THE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING IMPROPER

MOTIVES OF A MULTI-MEMBER MUNICIPAL BOARD, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 865 (2008) 1128. FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: LOGIC WITHOUT EXPERIENCE: THE PROBLEM

OF FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 97 (2006)82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 97 p.97

1129. ARTICLE: REFORMING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871: THE PROBLEM OF POLICE PERJURY, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1259 (2005)

80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1259 p.1259

1130. ARTICLE: OF SOVEREIGNTY AND UNION: THE LEGENDS OF ALDEN, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1113 (2001)


1131. ARTICLE: INTERSYSTEMIC REDUNDANCY AND FEDERAL COURT POWER: PROPOSING A ZERO TOLERANCE SOLUTION TO THE DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION PROBLEM, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347 (2000)

1132. ARTICLE: INTERSYSTEMIC REDUNDANCY AND FEDERAL COURT POWER: PROPOSING A ZERO

TOLERANCE SOLUTION TO THE DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION PROBLEM, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347 (2000)

1133. 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1347


1134. COMMENT: COMMENTS ON ROOKER-FELDMAN OR LET STATE LAW BE OUR GUIDE, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1209 (1999)


1135. ARTICLE: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE: EVALUATING ITS JURISDICTIONAL STATUS, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1175 (1999)


1136. ARTICLE: JUDICIAL FEDERALISM IN THE TRENCHES: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE INACTION, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1085 (1999)


1137. ARTICLES: When the Environment is Other People: An Essay on Science, Culture, and the Authoritative Allocation of Values, 69 Notre Dame L. Rev. 597 (1994)

1138. ARTICLE: THE CASELOAD CONUNDRUM, CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT AND THE

MANIPULATION OF JURISDICTION, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 321 (1989)

Page 133

1139. CASE COMMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - JETT V. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT:

THE APPLICABILITY OF MUNICIPAL VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER, 63 Notre Dame L. Rev. 233 (1988)


1140. SYMPOSIUM THE BURGER COURT AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: ARTICLE: STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TWO FACES OF FEDERALISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 833 (1985)

1141. Comment: FREE SPEECH AND DUE PROCESS PROBLEMS IN THE REGULATION AND FINANCING

OF JUDICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, 101 Nw. U.L. Rev. 331 (2007)101 Nw. U.L. Rev. 331 p.331

1142. Comment: ABSTENTION PREEMPTION: HOW THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE OPENED THE DOOR TO THE ERADICATION OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1355 (2005)

99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1355 p.1355

1143. Comment: STANDING IN GOOD STEAD: STATE COURTS, FEDERAL STANDING DOCTRINE, AND REVERSE-ERIE ANALYSIS, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1315 (2005)

99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1315 p.1315

1144. NOTE & COMMENT: UNEXAMINED PREMISES: TOWARD DOCTRINAL PURITY IN 1983 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION DOCTRINE, 97 Nw. U.L. Rev. 439 (2002)

97 Nw. U.L. Rev. 439 p.439

1145. LEGAL THEORY: IMMUNITY UNDER INTERPRETIVE APPROACH AND THE SEARCH FOR THE LEGISLATIVE WILL., 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 497 (1992)

86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 497 p.533

1146. BOOK REVIEW: THE SEDUCTION OF DEDUCTION: THE ALLURE OF AND PROBLEMS WITH A DEDUCTIVE APPROACH TO FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION A REVIEW OF MARTIN H. REDISH, THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE POLITICAL ORDER: JUDICIAL JURISDICTION AND AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORY, 86 Nw. U.L. Rev. 96 (1991)

1147. LEGAL THEORY: A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE: THE SUPREME COURT, CONGRESS AND FEDERAL

JURISDICTION., 85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 (1990)85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 p.18

1148. BOOK REVIEW: CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS? A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. By Richard A. Posner. *, 80 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1383 (1986)

1149. 75 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1112

75 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1112 p.1125

1150. 74 Nw. U.L. Rev. 89474 Nw. U.L. Rev. 894 p.922

Page 134




1154. THE TWENTIETH ANNUAL LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM: FEAR AND FEDERALISM: ARTICLE: The New And Unfortunate Face of Judicial Federalism, 23 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 1197 (1997)

23 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 1197 p.1197

1155. Note & Comment: Procedural Impediments to the Resolution of Mass Tort Cases: The Anti-Injunction Act and the Due Process Clause, 12 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 485 (1997)

1156. SYMPOSIUM: THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE CURRENT CYCLE OF FAMILY LAW

REFORM: State Intervention in the Family: Making a Federal Case Out of It., 45 Ohio St. L.J. 399 (1984) 1157. SYMPOSIUM: STATE PRISONER USE OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES: The

Exhaustion Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus: An Argument for a Return to First Principles., 44 Ohio St. L.J. 393 (1983)

1158. SYMPOSIUM: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT: THE 1999 TERM: What Is the Supreme

Court's New Federalism?, 25 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 927 (2000) 1159. ARTICLE: SECTION 1983: AGENT OF PEACE OR VEHICLE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN?, 54

Okla. L. Rev. 333 (2001)54 Okla. L. Rev. 333 p.333

1160. Article: Reservations About Extending Bivens to Reservations: Seeking Monetary Relief Against Tribal Law Enforcement Officers for Constitutional Violations, 29 Pace L. Rev. 585 (2009)

1161. COMMENTS AND NOTES: Who Wants Nominal Damages Anyway? The Impact of an Automatic

Entitlement to Nominal Damages under 1983, 13 Regent U.L. Rev. 225 (2000) 1162. ARTICLE: CASO SOBRE EL VOTO DE LOS PUERTORRIQUE OS EN LAS ELECCIONES

PRESIDENCIALES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS: EL CASO DE LAS ELECCIONES PRESIDENCIALES EN PUERTO RICO: UN RELATO PERSONAL, 37 Rev. Jur. U.I.P.R. 573 (2003)

37 Rev. Jur. U.I.P.R. 573 p.573

1163. ARTICLE: Jurisdictional Implications in the Reduced Funding of Lower Federal Courts, 25 Rev. Litig. 1 (2006)

1164. NOTE AND COMMENT: Mainstream Loudoun and the Future of Internet Filtering for America's Public

Libraries, 26 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 357 (2000)

Page 135

1165. ARTICLE: U.S. Torture as a Tort, 37 Rutgers L.J. 715 (2006)37 Rutgers L.J. 715 p.715

1166. ARTICLE: THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HABEAS, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125 (2005)

78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125 p.1125

1167. ARTICLE: DISPOSING OF THE RED HERRINGS: A DEFENSE OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 589 (1996)

1168. ARTICLE: CONTRACT THEORY AND THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS: AN APPROACH TO THE

ARBITRABILITY QUESTION., 60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1059 (1987) 1169. ARTICLE: JUDICIALLY ORDERED SOCIAL REFORM: NEOFEDERALISM AND NEONATIONALISM

AND THE DEBATE OVER POLITICAL STRUCTURE., 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 449 (1986) 1170. ARTICLE: Rejecting the Touchstone: Complete Preemption and Congressional Intent After Beneficial

National Bank v. Anderson, 59 S.C. L. Rev. 225 (2008)59 S.C. L. Rev. 225 p.225

1171. ARTICLE: A Catalogue of Judicial Federalism in the United States, 46 S.C. L. Rev. 835 (1995) 1172. ARTICLE: THE "NEW" FEDERAL HABEAS: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, 40

S.D. L. Rev. 442 (1995) 1173. COMMENT: CAN CONGRESS REQUIRE THAT STATES WAIVE THEIR IMMUNITY TO PRIVATE

LAWSUITS IN EXCHANGE FOR RECEIVING FEDERAL PATENT RIGHTS?, 42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 607 (2002)

42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 607 p.607

1174. ARTICLE: THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS REVOLUTION: HOW CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION CAME TO REGULATE POLICE AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MISCONDUCT, 7 SCHOLAR 151 (2005)

1175. ARTICLE: United Artists: Reviewing the Conscience Shocking Test Under Section 1983, 1 Seton Hall Cir.

Rev. 101 (2005) 1176. SURVEY: CRIMINAL LAW - Malicious Prosecution - An Overturned Municipal Court Conviction Does not

Prevent a Plaintiff from Suing a Police Officer in a Malicious Prosecution Action - Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998)., 29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1178 (1999)

29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1178 p.1178

1177. ARTICLE: The Abstention Doctrines: Balancing Comity with Federal Court Intervention, 28 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1102 (1998)

1178. COMMENT: WILSON v. SPAIN: WILL PRETRIAL DETAINEES ESCAPE THE CONSTITUTIONAL

"TWILIGHT ZONE"?, 75 St. John's L. Rev. 449 (2001)75 St. John's L. Rev. 449 p.449

Page 136

1179. TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS: ARTICLE: A LITIGATION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. 857 (2009)

53 St. Louis U. L.J. 857 p.857

1180. COMMENT: RECONCILING ALEXANDER AND GILMER: EXPLAINING THE CONTINUED VALIDITY OF ALEXANDER V. GARDNER-DENVER CO. IN THE CONTEXT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, 43 St. Louis U. L.J. 219 (1999)

43 St. Louis U. L.J. 219 p.219

1181. SYMPOSIUM: SHIFTING THE BALANCE OF POWER? THE SUPREME COURT, FEDERALISM, AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: "Appropriate" Means-Ends Constraints on Section 5 Powers, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127 (2001)

53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127 p.1127

1182. SYMPOSIUM ON CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM: Congress and the Courts:Our Mutual Obligation, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1285 (1994)

1183. ARTICLE: Taking Comity Seriously: How to Neutralize the Abstention Doctrine, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049

(1994)46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049 p.1058

1184. ARTICLE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS PRACTICAL REASONING., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 (1990)42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 p.354

1185. ARTICLE: The Idea of a Case., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 227 (1990)42 Stan. L. Rev. 227 p.282

1186. ARTICLE: A Critical Approach to Section 1983 with Special Attention to Sources of Law., 42 Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1989)

42 Stan. L. Rev. 51 p.73

1187. NOTE: The Misapplication of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine in Non-Antitrust Right to Petition Cases., 36 Stan. L. Rev. 1243 (1984)

1188. 29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191

29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191 p.1195

1189. 29 Stan. L. Rev. 89329 Stan. L. Rev. 893 p.921



Page 137

1192. ARTICLE: THE NEW ETIQUETTE OF FEDERALISM: NEW YORK, PRINTZ, AND YESKEY, 1998 Sup. Ct. Rev. 71 (1998)

1193. COMMENT: THE FIGHT FOR CREAMY PEANUT BUTTER: WHY EXAMINING CONGRESSIONAL

INTENT MAY RECTIFY THE PROBLEMS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 145 (2007)

36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 145 p.145

1194. COMMENT: TRANSFER OF VENUE UNDER (a): ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, OR, CRACKING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, 75 Temp. L. Rev. 925 (2002)

75 Temp. L. Rev. 925 p.925

1195. ARTICLE: THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT: THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT OF COURT - IT MAY BE EFFECTIVE, BUT IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471 (1997)

1196. Constitutional Torts and the Due Process Clause, 4 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 317 (1995)

1197. ARTICLE: THE JURISDICTIONAL LEGACY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 869

(1994) 1198. ARTICLE: HOW MANY BITES ARE ENOUGH? THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN UNIVERSITY

OF TENNESSEE V. ELLIOTT, 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 205 (1988) 1199. ARTICLE: MR. JUSTICE POTTER STEWART: THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF JUSTICE

POTTER STEWART: REFLECTIONS ON A LIFE OF PUBLIC SERVICE, 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1987) 1200. ARTICLE: THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 52

Tenn. L. Rev. 605 (1985) 1201. ARTICLE: Protecting a Federal Court Judgment, 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 635 (1975)

1202. NOTE: Judicial Misuse of History and 1983: Toward a Purpose-Based Approach *, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 999

(2007)85 Tex. L. Rev. 999 p.999

1203. ARTICLE: Drawing Lines Between Chevron and Pennhurst: A Functional Analysis of the Spending Power, Federalism, and the Administrative State, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1197 (2004)

82 Tex. L. Rev. 1197 p.1197

1204. Book Review: The Politics of Constitutional Law, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 (2000)79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 p.163

1205. NOTE: Equitable Subordination and Analogous Theories of Lender Liability: Toward a New Model of "Control". *, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 801 (1987)

1206. ARTICLE: Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act., 64 Tex. L. Rev.

1039 (1986)64 Tex. L. Rev. 1039 p.1082

Page 138

1207. 55 Tex. L. Rev. 114155 Tex. L. Rev. 1141 p.1143

1208. NOTE AND COMMENT: ESCAPE DENIED: THE GRETNA BRIDGE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ARMED BLOCKADE IN THE WAKE OF KATRINA +, 13 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 127 (2006)

1209. DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: MOURNING THE DEATH OF

ORIGINALISM IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 68 Tul. L. Rev. 803 (1994) 1210. ESSAY: ADMINISTRATIVE PROSECUTORIAL INDISCRETION., 63 Tul. L. Rev. 877 (1989)

1211. ARTICLE: THE POWER OF STATE LEGISLATURES TO SUBPOENA FEDERAL OFFICIALS., 58 Tul. L.

Rev. 548 (1983) 1212. NOTE: Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure--Younger Abstention Doctrine Extended to State Attachment

Proceeding, 52 Tul. L. Rev. 194 (1977)52 Tul. L. Rev. 194 p.194

1213. ARTICLE: Limitation of Liability in Oil Pollution Cases: In Search of Concursus or Procedural Alternatives to Concursus *, 22 Tul. Mar. L. J. 331 (1998)

1214. Comment: Preserving Procedure: Requiring the Government to Disprove Causation in Procedural Due

Process Claims, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 441 (2009)76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 441 p.441

1215. COMMENT: Why Title IX Does Not Preclude Section 1983 Claims, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1465 (1998) 1216. COMMENT: Federal Habeas Corpus and State Procedural Default: An Abstention-Based Interest

Analysis., 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263 (1989) 1217. ARTICLE: State Sovereignty and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments., 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 61 (1989)

56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 61 p.83

1218. COMMENT: Excessive Force Claims: Removing the Double Standard., 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1369 (1986) 1219. ARTICLE: Section 1983 and the Private Enforcement of Federal Law, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 394 (1982)

49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 394 p.409

1220. 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 63646 U. Chi. L. Rev. 636 p.662



Page 139


1224. COMMENT: SECTION 1983 AND TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT: IN PURSUIT OF IMPROVED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, 60 U. Cin. L. Rev. 221 (1991)

1225. CASENOTE: MINORITY BUSINESS SET-ASIDES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF

PRIOR DISCRIMINATION: City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989), 58 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1097 (1990)

1226. CASE NOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- CIVIL RIGHTS -- STATES -- THE WISCONSIN STATUTORY

RECOVERY CEILING ON DAMAGE AWARDS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL BODIES IS INAPPLICABLE TO A DAMAGE AWARD UNDER -- Thompson v. Village of Hales Corners, 340 N.W.2d 704 (Wis. 1983), 53 U. Cin. L. Rev. 667 (1984)

1227. RECENT CASE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- SEARCH AND SEIZURE -- POLICE -- ARREST --

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY POLICE OFFICERS AGAINST AN UNARMED SUSPECT OF A NONVIOLENT FELONY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS -- Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983), 52 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1155 (1983)

1228. RECENT CASE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- FEDERALISM -- FEDERAL COURTS -- FEDERAL

JURISDICTION -- EQUITY -- REMEDIES -- INJUNCTIONS -- DECLARATORY RELIEF -- DAMAGES -- THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, BUT FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RETAINED WHEN THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF THAT CANNOT BE GRANTED BY THE STATE FORUM. -- Williams v. Red Bank, 51 U. Cin. L. Rev. 427 (1982)

1229. ARTICLE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: RULE INTERPLEADER, THE ANTI-INJUNCTION

ACT, IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION, AND M.C. ESCHER, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 (1996) 1230. Comment: From Anti-Injunction to Radical Reform: Proposing a Unifying Approach to Class-Action

Adjudication, 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 (2008)31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 p.155

1231. ARTICLE: Courts and the Cultural Performance: Native Hawaiians' Uncertain Federal and State Law Rights to Sue, 16 U. Haw. L. Rev. 1 (1994)

1232. 1976 U. Ill. L. Forum 1016

1976 U. Ill. L. Forum 1016 p.1051

1233. ARTICLE: THE BUCK DOES NOT STOP HERE: SUPERVISORY LIABILITY IN SECTION 1983 CASES, 1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 147 (1997)

1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 147 p.168

1234. NOTE: QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY OF STATE OFFICIALS: BUTZ V. ECONOMOU'S DISTORTED LEGACY, 1985 U. Ill. L. Rev. 401 (1985)

1235. TRANSITION: FETAL RIGHTS: DEFINING "PERSON" UNDER, 1983 U. Ill. L. Rev. 347 (1983)

Page 140

1236. COMMENT: Civil Rights--Allah v. Al-Hafeez: Section 1997e(e) of The Prison Litigation Reform Act: A

Recovery Limitation on Frivolous or Legitimate Claims?, 32 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1031 (2002) 1237. SYMPOSIUM: FISS'S WAY: THE SCHOLARSHIP OF OWEN FISS: IV. POLITICAL FREEDOM: Holistic

Interpretation, Comparative Constitutionalism, and Fiss-ian Freedoms, 58 U. Miami L. Rev. 265 (2003)58 U. Miami L. Rev. 265 p.265

1238. CASE COMMENT: Beyond a Black and White Reading of Sections 1981 and 1982: Shifting the Focus from Racial Status to Racist Acts, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 823 (1987)

1239. CASENOTE: Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.: Beyond a Crude Analysis of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine's

Preclusion of Federal Jurisdiction, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 627 (1987) 1240. ARTICLE: The Emerging State Court 1983 Action: A Procedural Review $(PART 1 OF 2$), 38 U. Miami

L. Rev. 381 (1984) 1241. ARTICLE: THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN VOTING RIGHTS LITIGATION, 30 U. Mich. J.L.

Reform 79 (1996) 1242. NOTE: TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION: A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PHYSICIAN AID-

IN-DYING, 27 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 521 (1994) 1243. THE THIRTY-SECOND THOMAS M. COOLEY LECTURES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS: PERSPECTIVES FROM ABROAD: NOTE: ABUSIVE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROPOSALS FOR JUDICIAL CONTROL, 18 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 93 (1984)

1244. NOTE: IS THE SECTION 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE OVERWORKED? EXPANDED USE OF

MAGISTRATES--AN ALTERNATIVE TO EXHAUSTION, 17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 361 (1984) 1245. ARTICLE: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND DUE PROCESS IN THE ERA OF THE NATIONWIDE CLASS

ACTION, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2035 (2008)156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2035 p.2035

1246. ARTICLE: THE PUZZLE OF COMPLETE PREEMPTION, 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 537 (2007)155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 537 p.537

1247. COMMENTS: THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE: TOWARD A WORKABLE ROLE, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1555 (2001)

149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1555 p.1555

1248. COMMENT: COMITY BE DAMNED: THE USE OF ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE COURTS OF A FOREIGN NATION, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 409 (1998)

147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 409 p.409

1249. ARTICLE: FORUM SHOPPING FOR ARBITRATION DECISIONS: FEDERAL COURTS' USE OF ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST STATE COURTS, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 91 (1998)

147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 91 p.91

Page 141

1250. ARTICLE: RESHAPING SECTION 1983's ASYMMETRY., 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 (1992)140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 p.773

1251. ARTICLE: THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE IN THE SUPREME COURT: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE RESTRICTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS., 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 (1989)

138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 p.24

1252. ARTICLE: RELEASES, REDRESS, AND POLICE MISCONDUCT: REFLECTIONS ON AGREEMENTS TO WAIVE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGES., 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 851 (1988)

136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 851 p.918

1253. 126 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1203126 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1203 p.1277




1257. ARTICLE: RETHINKING EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION *, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383 (1991) 1258. ARTICLE: IMMUNITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION: WHO SHOULD PAY?

**, 50 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 935 (1989) 1259. ARTICLE: AVOIDING DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION: RETHINKING PLAINTIFF AUTONOMY AND THE

COURT'S ROLE IN DEFINING THE LITIGATIVE UNIT., 50 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 809 (1989) 1260. ARTICLE: FAIR ASSESSMENT AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. +, 45 U. Pitt.

L. Rev. 351 (1984) 1261. EX PARTE YOUNG SYMPOSIUM: A CENTENNIAL RECOGNITION: ARTICLE: EX PARTE YOUNG:

SOVEREIGNTY, IMMUNITY, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM, 40 U. Tol. L. Rev. 843 (2009)

1262. PROSPECTUSES: Prospectus for the American Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project, 31

U.C. Davis L. Rev. 855 (1998) 1263. ARTICLE: LEGAL INDETERMINACY, JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN

LITIGATION EXPERIENCE: 1930-1980, 27 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 555 (1994) 1264. ARTICLE: Legal Indeterminacy, Judicial Discretion and the Mexican-American Litigation Experience:

1930-1980, 27 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 555 (1994)

Page 142

1265. SYMPOSIUM: Constitutional "Niches": The Role of Institutional Context in Constitutional Law: Revisiting Youngstown: Against the View That Jackson's Concurrence Resolves the Relation Between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1703 (2007)

54 UCLA L. Rev. 1703 p.1703

1266. ARTICLE: Judicial Parity, Litigant Choice, and Democratic Theory: A Comment on Federal Jurisdiction and Constitutional Rights, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 329 (1988)

36 UCLA L. Rev. 329 p.343

1267. ARTICLE: Parity Reconsidered: Defining a Role for the Federal Judiciary, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 (1988)36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 p.245

1268. 29 UCLA L. Rev. 129 UCLA L. Rev. 1 p.24

1269. 25 UCLA L. Rev. 130125 UCLA L. Rev. 1301 p.1304

1270. ARTICLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT v. THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE DILEMMA OF INHERENTLY COMPETING RIGHTS IN FREE SPEECH-BASED "CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS", 71 UMKC L. Rev. 27 (2002)

71 UMKC L. Rev. 27 p.27

1271. ARTICLE: A "Milder Measure of Villainy": The Unknown History of and the Meaning of "Under Color of" Law, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 1 (1999)

1272. REASSESSING THE ALLOCATION OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL

COURTS: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND "THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES". *, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 (1992)

78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 p.178578 Va. L. Rev. 1769 p.1830

1273. ARTICLE: THE IDEOLOGIES OF FEDERAL COURTS LAW., 74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988)74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 p.1144

1274. ARTICLE: FEDERALISM, STATE COURTS, AND SECTION 1983., 73 Va. L. Rev. 959 (1987)73 Va. L. Rev. 959 p.961

1275. ARTICLE: "UNDER COLOR OF" WHAT LAW: A RECONSTRUCTED MODEL OF SECTION 1983 LIABILITY., 71 Va. L. Rev. 499 (1985)

71 Va. L. Rev. 499 p.508

1276. 64 Va. L. Rev. 83364 Va. L. Rev. 833 p.833

Page 143

1277. 60 Va. L. Rev. 25060 Va. L. Rev. 250 p.284

1278. 60 Va. L. Rev. 160 Va. L. Rev. 1 p.59

1279. NOTE: A Standard for "Class of One" Claims Under the Equal Protection Clause of The Fourteenth Amendment: Protecting Victims of Non-Class Based Discrimination From Vindictive State Action, 35 Val. U.L. Rev. 197 (2000)

35 Val. U.L. Rev. 197 p.197

1280. NOTE: IN THE HEAT OF THE CHASE: DETERMINING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF POLICE PURSUITS WHEN AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER IS INJURED, 30 Val. U.L. Rev. 161 (1995)

30 Val. U.L. Rev. 161 p.161

1281. ARTICLE: Phantom Menace or New Hope: Member State Public Tort Liability After the Double-Bladed Light Saber Duel Between the European Court of Justice and the German Bundesgerichtshof in Brasserie du Pecheur, 33 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 311 (2000)

1282. ARTICLE: Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused, 51 Vand. L. Rev. 581 (1998)

51 Vand. L. Rev. 581 p.581

1283. ARTICLE: Regulatory Takings and Ripeness in the Federal Courts, 48 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (1995) 1284. ARTICLE: Late Night Confessions in the Hart and Wechsler Hotel., 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993 (1994)

1285. ARTICLE: Tapping the State Court Resource., 44 Vand. L. Rev. 953 (1991)

1286. NOTE: Quick Termination of Insubstantial Civil Rights Claims: Qualified Immunity and Procedural

Fairness., 38 Vand. L. Rev. 1543 (1985) 1287. RELEASE-DISMISSAL AGREEMENT VALIDITY - From Per Se Invalidity to Conditional Validity, and

Now Turning Back to Per Se Invalidity, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 1135 (1994) 1288. TO BE OR NOT TO BE: OPT-IN STATUS UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH

PENALTY ACT, 25 Vt. L. Rev. 603 (2001)25 Vt. L. Rev. 603 p.603

1289. CASE NOTE: Hudson v. McMillian: When Does a Prisoner Beating Become Cruel and Unusual Punishment?, 20 W. St. U. L. Rev. 201 (1992)

20 W. St. U. L. Rev. 201 p.201

1290. ARTICLE: REASSESSING THE PURPOSES OF FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION, 42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 247 (2007)

42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 247 p.247

Page 144

1291. ARTICLE: ENGLE V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.: LESSONS IN STATE CLASS ACTIONS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND JURY DECISION-MAKING MANAGING PUNITIVE DAMAGES: A ROLE FOR MANDATORY "LIMITED GENEROSITY" CLASSES AND ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS?, 36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1043 (2001)

36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1043 p.1043

1292. ARTICLE: Is the Family a Federal Question?, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 131 (2009)66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 131 p.131

1293. SYMPOSIUM: THE JURISPRUDENTIAL LEGACY OF THE WARREN COURT: Institutional Role of the Federal Courts: Come Back to the Nickel and Five: * Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law, 59 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1203 (2002)

59 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1203 p.1203

1294. ARTICLE: THE ASYMMETRY OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, 76 Wash. L. Rev. 1067 (2001)76 Wash. L. Rev. 1067 p.1067

1295. ARTICLE: MISSOURI V. JENKINS AND THE DE FACTO ABANDONMENT OF COURT-ENFORCED DESEGREGATION, 71 Wash. L. Rev. 597 (1996)

1296. NOTE & COMMENT: WASHINGTON COURTS GET STINGY: IMPROPER DENIAL OF ATTORNEY'S

FEES UNDER AND 1988, 70 Wash. L. Rev. 491 (1995) 1297. COMMENT: CIVIL RIGHTS: A CALL FOR QUALIFIED LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY FOR CITY

COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER, 66 Wash. L. Rev. 169 (1991) 1298. RECENT DEVELOPMENT: FEDERAL COURT INTERPRETATION OF THE WASHINGTON

OBSCENITY STATUTE -- Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 105 S. Ct. 2794 (1985)., 61 Wash. L. Rev. 1237 (1986)

1299. RECENT DEVELOPMENT: CONFRONTING THE FICTIONS OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT:

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 104 S. Ct. 900 (1984)., 60 Wash. L. Rev. 407 (1985) 1300. EVOLVING VOICES IN LAND USE LAW: A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF DANIEL R. MANDELKER:

Part II: Discussions on the National Level: Chapter 3: Takings Issues: Supreme Bait & Switch: The Ripeness Ruse in Regulatory Takings, 3 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 99 (2000)

1301. ARTICLE: PROCEEDING GEOMETRICALLY: RETHINKING PARALLEL STATE AND FEDERAL

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, 18 Whittier L. Rev. 499 (1997) 1302. ARTICLE: INNOCENCE, HARMLESS ERROR, AND FEDERAL WRONGFUL CONVICTION LAW, 2005

Wis. L. Rev. 35 (2005)2005 Wis. L. Rev. 35 p.35

1303. COMMENT: STATUTORY INDEMNIFICATION IN SECTION 1983 ACTIONS BASED ON POLICE MISCONDUCT: CHOOSING A FORUM., 1988 Wis. L. Rev. 605 (1988)

1988 Wis. L. Rev. 605 p.605

Page 145

1304. ARTICLE: THE FINAL AUTHORITY ANALYSIS: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983., 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 633 (1986)

1986 Wis. L. Rev. 633 p.636

1305. ARTICLE: THE RATIONALES FOR FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF STUDENT RIGHTS LITIGATION., 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 1315 (1984)

1984 Wis. L. Rev. 1315 p.1331

1306. 1975 Wis. L. Rev. 5231975 Wis. L. Rev. 523 p.534

1307. ARTICLE: The Extraordinary Execution of Billy Vickers, the Banality of Death, and the Demise of Post-Conviction Review, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 521 (2004)

1308. ARTICLE: Understanding Prophylactic Remedies Through the Looking Glass of Bush V. Gore, 11 Wm. &

Mary Bill of Rts. J. 343 (2002) 1309. SYMPOSIUM: CIVIL RIGHTS WITHOUT REMEDIES: VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER TITLE VII,

SECTION 1983, AND TITLE IX, 7 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 755 (1999) 1310. ARTICLE: Forum Allocation in Toxic Tort Cases: Lessons from the Tobacco Litigation and Other Recent

Developments, 26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 93 (2001) 1311. ARTICLE: THE CURIOUS COMPLICATIONS WITH BACK-END OPT-OUT RIGHTS, 49 Wm. & Mary L.

Rev. 373 (2007)49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 373 p.373

1312. ARTICLE: MAKING FEDERALISM DOCTRINE: FIDELITY, INSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCE, AND COMPENSATING ADJUSTMENTS, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733 (2005)

1313. 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733

46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1733 p.1733

1314. ARTICLE: GAZING INTO THE CRYSTAL BALL: REFLECTIONS ON THE STANDARDS STATE JUDGES SHOULD USE TO ASCERTAIN FEDERAL LAW, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1143 (1999)

40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1143 p.1143

1315. NOTE: MAPPING THE MORASS: APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT TO JUDICIAL ELECTIONS, 33 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1251 (1992)

1316. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 439 (1990)

1317. ARTICLE: THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS ON THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, 30

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 499 (1989) 1318. ARTICLE: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT: EXPERIENCES IN THE EIGHTH

CIRCUIT, 23 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 81 (1997) 1319. ARTICLES: THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION AS A SWORD: THE EVOLVING PRIVATE CAUSE OF

Page 146

ACTION, 20 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 313 (1994) 1320. UNRAVELING THE "IN LIEU OF WHAT" TEST: TITLEVII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

DAMAGES AND THE PERSONAL INJURYEXCLUSIONUnited States v. Burke, 112 S. Ct. 1867 (1992)., 19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1019 (1993)

19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1019 p.1019

1321. ARTICLE: Experimentalist Equal Protection, 22 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 261 (2004) 1322. ESSAY: Equity and Hierarchy: Reflections on the Harris Execution., 102 Yale L.J. 255 (1992)

102 Yale L.J. 255 p.261

1323. NOTE: (Un)Luckey v. Miller: The Case for a Structural Injunction to Improve Indigent Defense Services, 101 Yale L.J. 481 (1991)

1324. NOTE: Section 1983 in State Court: A Remedy for Unconstitutional State Taxation., 95 Yale L.J. 414

(1985) 1325. ARTICLE: Abstention, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of the Judicial Function., 94 Yale L.J. 71

(1984)94 Yale L.J. 71 p.86

1326. NOTE: Making the Old Federalism Work: Section 1983 and the Rights of Grant-in-Aid Beneficiaries, 92 Yale L.J. 1001 (1983)

1327. NOTE: Making the Violation Fit the Remedy: The Intent Standard and Equal Protection Law, 92 Yale L.J.

328 (1982) 1328. 86 Yale L.J. 1103

86 Yale L.J. 1103 p.1128

1329. 86 Yale L.J. 103586 Yale L.J. 1035 p.1040

1330. 86 Yale L.J. 101986 Yale L.J. 1019 p.1028

1331. 82 Yale L.J. 136382 Yale L.J. 1363 p.136482 Yale L.J. 1363 p.1395

1332. SYMPOSIUM: TREATIES AND DOMESTIC LAW AFTER MEDELL'IN V. TEXAS: A PRIMER ON TREATIES AND 1983 AFTER MEDELL'IN V. TEXAS, 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 35 (2009)

1333. SYMPOSIUM: GOD'S LAW IN THE PEOPLE'S LAW: A DISCUSSION OF CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

ARISING FROM RELIGION AND THE LAW: THE SANCTITY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF MINORITY FAITHS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THREE HYPOTHESES, 6 RRGC 21 (2006)

Page 147

ANNOTATIONS ( 3 Citing Annotations )

1334. Prohibition under anti-injunction statute (28 USCS sec. 2283) of federal court from granting injunction to stay proceedings in state court--Supreme Court cases, 66 L. Ed. 2d 903, secs. 2, 7, 11

1335. Supreme Court's rule, and exceptions to rule, against federal judicial intervention in pending or threatened

state criminal proceedings, 44 L. Ed. 2d 692, secs. 3, 4, 7 1336. Supreme Court's construction of Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS sec. 1983) providing private right of

action for violation of federal rights, 43 L. Ed. 2d 833, secs. 3, 16 TREATISE CITATIONS ( 39 Citing Sources )

1337. 6-59 California Forms of Pleading and Practice--Annotated @ 59.16 1338. 1-2 Civil Rights Actions P 2.04

1339. 2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.01





1344. 7-F17 Civil Rights Actions @ F17.02

1345. 3Ap1-G14E Condemnation Procedures & Techniques - Forms @ G14E.06

1346. 8-G14E Condemnation Procedures & Techniques - Forms @ G14E.06

1347. Ch. App. 11-11 Constitutional Rights of Prisoners APPENDIX 4

1348. 3-54 Criminal Defense Techniques @ 54.02

1349. 2-6 EDUCATION LAW @ 6.22

1350. 5-12 EDUCATION LAW @ 12.03

1351. 1-2 Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure @ 2.3

1352. 1-10 IL Governmental Tort & Civil Rights Liability @ 10.01

1353. Manual of Federal Practice 5th @ 1.115

1354. 1-2 Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal @ 2A-4

1355. 5-87 Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 87.03

1356. 17A-120 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 120.21


Page 148

1358. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.07 1359. 17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.09



1362. 18-133 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 133.32

1363. 1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.20



1366. 4-155 Moore's Federal Rules Pamphlet @ 2283.2

1367. 8-G14E Nichols on Eminent Domain @ G14E.06

1368. 8-29 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 3

1369. 8-29 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 29.02

1370. 4-62 Texas Torts and Remedies @ 62.01



1373. 4-9 Treatise on Environmental Law @ 9.04

1374. 1-15 Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual @ 15.01

1375. 1-15 Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual @ 15.03

BRIEFS ( 253 Citing Briefs )

1376. POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY v. HARRINGTON, 2008 U.S. Briefs 1065, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 904 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009)

1377. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM. & RUSSELL DEVER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S.

Ct. Briefs LEXIS 887 (U.S. Oct. 29, 2008) 1378. VAN DE KAMP v. GOLDSTEIN, 2007 U.S. Briefs 854, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 793 (U.S. Sept. 5,

2008) 1379. Panse v. Norman, 2008 U.S. Briefs 535, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1605 (U.S. Sept. 3, 2008)

1380. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 750

(U.S. Aug. 29, 2008) 1381. FITZGERALD v. BARNSTABLE SCH. COMM., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1125, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 751

(U.S. Aug. 29, 2008)

Page 149

1382. HAYWOOD v. DROWN, 2007 U.S. Briefs 10374, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 732 (U.S. Aug. 20, 2008) 1383. Stewart v. Childers, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1433, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1219 (U.S. May 13, 2008)

1384. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. MARTINEZ, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1096, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2646

(U.S. Apr. 25, 2008) 1385. WILCOX v. UNITED STATES ex rel. STONER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1336, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1845

(U.S. Apr. 21, 2008) 1386. GILGALLON v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1018, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1730 (U.S.

Mar. 10, 2008) 1387. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. MARTINEZ, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1096, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2620

(U.S. Feb. 19, 2008) 1388. RAISER v. KONO, 2007 U.S. Briefs 947, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1735 (U.S. Jan. 3, 2008)

1389. PETERS v. VILLAGE OF CLIFTON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 635, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2697 (U.S. Dec.

17, 2007) 1390. AKL v. JUDGE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 687, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3217 (U.S. Nov. 21, 2007)

1391. BRYAN v. BELLSOUTH TELCOMS., INC., 2007 U.S. Briefs 458, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2996

(U.S. Oct. 1, 2007) 1392. BARR LABS., INC. v. SAMANTA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 20, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2368 (U.S. Aug. 2,

2007) 1393. AKL v. VIRGINIA HOSP. CTR., 2007 U.S. Briefs 39, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2461 (U.S. July 10,

2007) 1394. Hopkins v. Northbrook Mobile Home Park Corp., 2006 U.S. Briefs 489024, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

3222 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2006) 1395. Castro v. Puerto Rico Hwy., 2006 U.S. Briefs 54815, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2787 (U.S. Dec. 12,

2006) 1396. WALLACE v. KATO, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1240, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 706 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2006)

1397. JONES v. BOCK, 2005 U.S. Briefs 7058, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 718 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2006)

1398. TORROMEO v. TOWN OF FREMONT, 2006 U.S. Briefs 112C, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2777 (U.S.

July 21, 2006) 1399. LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 8820, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 477 (U.S. June 26, 2006)

1400. HILL v. McDONOUGH, 2005 U.S. Briefs 8794, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 392 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2006)

1401. LAWRENCE v. ANTONUCCI, 2005 U.S. Briefs 987A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1812 (U.S. Dec. 22,

2005) 1402. VINES v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1615A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 1438 (U.S. Dec. 20, 2005)

Page 150

1403. GOLIN v. ALLENBY, 2005 U.S. Briefs 791B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2055 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005) 1404. LOVE v. VAN WATTS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 598B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1847 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)

1405. LOVE v. VAN WATTS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 598, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2570 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)

1406. SCHWIEGERATH v. THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DIST., the Dist., THE DIST. COURT OF DOUGLAS

COUNTY, the Court, ANGELA ARKIN, the Judge BETH-ELLIOTT DUMMLER, the Magistrate, CHERYL LANE, the Clerk of the Court, ELIZABETH HOLMAN, the Special Advocate, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1730, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1995 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2005)

1407. AMAYA v. PITNER, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1015, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1621 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2005)

1408. VINES v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1615A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 1552 (U.S. Sept. 19, 2005) 1409. NORTH PACIFICA LLC v. CITY OF PACIFICA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 604A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1850 (U.S. Sept. 13, 2005) 1410. BURKYBILE v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST.,

2005 U.S. Briefs 437A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1557 (U.S. Sept. 13, 2005) 1411. JMYK v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASS'N, 2005 U.S. Briefs 499, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1405

(U.S. Aug. 11, 2005) 1412. SCHWIEGERATH v. THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DIST., the Dist., THE DIST. COURT OF DOUGLAS

COUNTY, the Court, BETH-ELLIOTT DUMMLER, the Magistrate, CHERYL LANE, the Clerk of the Court, ELIZABETH HOLMAN, the Special Advocate, &, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1730, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1994 (U.S. June 20, 2005)

1413. LOMMEN v. MCINTYRE, 2005 U.S. Briefs 65A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1183 (U.S. June 8, 2005)

1414. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, 2004 U.S. Briefs 278, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 151 (U.S.

Feb. 10, 2005) 1415. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, 2004 U.S. Briefs 278, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 148 (U.S.

Feb. 9, 2005) 1416. SAN REMO HOTEL L.P. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2004 U.S. Briefs 340, 2005 U.S. S.

Ct. Briefs LEXIS 53 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) 1417. SAN REMO HOTEL L.P. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2004 U.S. Briefs 340, 2005 U.S. S.

Ct. Briefs LEXIS 67 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) 1418. LIGHTHOUSE INST. FOR EVANGELISM, INC. v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH, 2004 U.S. Briefs 555, 2004

U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 892 (U.S. Oct. 22, 2004) 1419. WILKINSON v. DOTSON, 2003 U.S. Briefs 287, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 679 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2004)

1420. NELSON v. CAMPBELL, 2003 U.S. Briefs 6821, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 254 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2004)

1421. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1105 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2003)

1422. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1025 (U.S. Dec. 17, 2003)

Page 151

1423. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 903 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2003) 1424. MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 9065, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 827 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2003)

1425. MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 9065, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 752 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2003)

1426. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1408 (U.S. July 16, 2003)

1427. HIBBS v. WINN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1809, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1405 (U.S. June 3, 2003)

1428. BREUER v. JIM'S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC., 2002 U.S. Briefs 337, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

399 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2003) 1429. INYO COUNTY v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OF THE BISHOP CMTY OF THE BISHOP COLONY,

2002 U.S. Briefs 281, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 103 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2003) 1430. CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1444, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 621 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2002)

1431. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. v. HENSON, 2001 U.S. Briefs 757, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

288 (U.S. June 4, 2002) 1432. GONZAGA UNIV. v. JOHN DOE, 2001 U.S. Briefs 679, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 121 (U.S. Feb. 25,

2002) 1433. PORTER v. NUSSLE, 2000 U.S. Briefs 853, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 972 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2000)

1434. NEVADA v. HICKS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1994, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1100 (U.S. July 12, 2000)

1435. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA BD. OF TRUSTEES v. GARRETT, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1240, 2000 U.S. S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 552 (U.S. June 22, 2000) 1436. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. ANTONIO J. MORRISON, ET AL. CHRISTY

BRZONKALA, PETITIONER v. ANTONIO J. MORRISON, ET AL., 1999 U.S. Briefs 5, 1999 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 212 (U.S. Nov. 12, 1999)

1437. CITY OF MONTEREY, Petitioner, vs. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. AND MONTEREY-

DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION, Respondents., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1235, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 385 (U.S. July 31, 1998)

1438. CITY OF MONTEREY, Petitioner, vs. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. AND MONTEREY-

DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION, Respondents., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1234, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 629 (U.S. July 31, 1998)

1439. BAKER v. GMC, 1996 U.S. Briefs 653, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 397 (U.S. July 21, 1997)

1440. JEFFERSON v. CITY OF TARRANT, 1996 U.S. Briefs 957, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 540 (U.S. May

15, 1997) 1441. JOHNSON v. FANKELL, 1996 U.S. Briefs 292, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 8 (U.S. Jan. 6, 1997)

1442. JEFFERSON v. CITY OF TARRANT, 1996 U.S. Briefs 957, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1276 (U.S. Nov.

27, 1996) 1443. CULP v. HOOD, 1996 U.S. Briefs 696, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1336 (U.S. Oct. 28, 1996)

Page 152

1444. BLESSING v. FREESTONE, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1441, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1383 (U.S. Oct. 17, 1996)

1445. BLESSING v. FREESTONE, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1441, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 439 (U.S. July 26,

1996) 1446. BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMM'RS OF BRYAN COUNTY v. BROWN, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1100, 1996 U.S.

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 415 (U.S. July 24, 1996) 1447. IDAHO v. COEUR d'ALENE TRIBE, 1994 U.S. Briefs 1474, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 357 (U.S. July

1, 1996) 1448. BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMM'RS OF BRYAN COUNTY v. BROWN, 1995 U.S. Briefs 1100, 1996 U.S.

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 344 (U.S. June 21, 1996) 1449. CARRIE JAFFEE, as Special Administrator for Ricky Allen, Sr., Deceased, Petitioner, v. MARYLU

REDMOND, Hoffman Estates Police Officer, and VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILLINOIS, Respondents., 1995 U.S. Briefs 266, 1995 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 593 (U.S. Nov. 30, 1995)

1450. FRANK BASIL McFARLAND, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 159 (U.S. Mar. 17, 1994)


CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 89 (U.S. Feb. 14, 1994)

1452. FRANK BASIL MCFARLAND, Petitioner, vs. JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 90 (U.S. Feb. 11, 1994)


CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent., 1993 U.S. Briefs 6497, 1994 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 75 (U.S. Jan. 21, 1994)

1454. KEVIN ALBRIGHT, Petitioner, v. ROGER OLIVER, et al., Respondents., 1992 U.S. Briefs 833, 1993 U.S.

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 238 (U.S. Apr. 29, 1993) 1455. BRECHT v. ABRAHAMSON, 1991 U.S. Briefs 7358, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 694 (U.S. Sept. 10,

1992) 1456. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM D. FORD, Respondent.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS L. JOHNSON, Respondent., 1991 U.S. Briefs 779, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 268 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1992)

1457. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, et al, Petitioners, against FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent.,

1991 U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 192 (U.S. Mar. 5, 1992) 1458. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent., 1991

U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 194 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1992) 1459. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., et al., Petitioners, v. FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent., 1991 U.S. Briefs

542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 195 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1992) 1460. ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., WARDEN, et al., Petitioners, against FRANK ROBERT WEST, JR., Respondent.,

Page 153

1991 U.S. Briefs 542, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 196 (U.S. Mar. 2, 1992) 1461. J. C. KEENEY, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner, v. JOSE TAMAYO-REYES,

Respondent., 1990 U.S. Briefs 1859, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 589 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1991) 1462. HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASS'N v. AG OF TEXAS, 1990 U.S. Briefs 813, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 915

(U.S. Apr. 8, 1991) 1463. MARK HOWLETT, a minor by and through Elizabeth Howlett, his mother, natural guardian and friend,

Petitioner, v. SCOTT ROSE, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS for Pinellas County, Florida; WILLIAM GREY, THOMAS PETIT, and THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondents., 1989 U.S. Briefs 5383, 1990 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 738 (U.S. Feb. 8, 1990)

1464. YELLOW FREIGHT SYS. v. DONNELLY, 1989 U.S. Briefs 431, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 258 (U.S.

Dec. 11, 1989) 1465. LEWIS v. CONTINENTAL BANK CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 1955, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 929 (U.S.

Oct. 3, 1989) 1466. MISSOURI v. JENKINS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1150, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 731 (U.S. Aug. 28, 1989)

1467. TAFFLIN v. LEVITT, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1650, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 895 (U.S. Aug. 16, 1989)

1468. SPALLONE v. UNITED STATES, 1988 U.S. Briefs 854, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 559 (U.S. Apr. 20,

1989) 1469. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC., Petitioner, v. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW

ORLEANS, et al. Respondents., 1988 U.S. Briefs 348, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 419 (U.S. Apr. 18, 1989)

1470. NEW ORLEANS PUB. SERV. v. COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 348, 1989 U.S. S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 420 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1989) 1471. JETT v. DALLAS INDEP. SCH. DIST., 1987 U.S. Briefs 2084, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1320 (U.S.

Feb. 3, 1989) 1472. NORMAN JETT, Petitioner, vs. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent., 1987 U.S.

Briefs 2084, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1316 (U.S. Jan. 4, 1989) 1473. NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ, 1988 U.S. Briefs 1281, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 126 (U.S. Dec. 27,

1988) 1474. TYRONE VICTOR HARDIN, Petitioner, v. DENNIS STRAUB, Respondent., 1987 U.S. Briefs 7023, 1988

U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 516 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1988) 1475. CHEMA v. UNITED STATES, 1988 U.S. Briefs 856, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 103 (U.S. Nov. 23,

1988) 1476. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1541 (U.S. Aug. 3, 1988) 1477. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1543 (U.S. Aug. 3, 1988) 1478. MESA v. CALIFORNIA, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1206, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1564 (U.S. July 21, 1988)

Page 154

1479. OWENS v. OKURE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 56, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1321 (U.S. July 6, 1988)

1480. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1539 (U.S. June 17, 1988) 1481. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1537 (U.S. Mar. 28, 1988) 1482. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 820 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1988)

1483. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 852 (U.S. Feb. 20, 1988)

1484. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 853 (U.S. Feb. 19, 1988)

1485. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 818 (U.S. Jan. 27, 1988)

1486. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 816 (U.S. Jan. 20, 1988)

1487. WILL v. MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE, 1987 U.S. Briefs 1207, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1536 (U.S. Jan. 11, 1988) 1488. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 847 (U.S. Jan. 11, 1988)

1489. FELDER v. CASEY, 1987 U.S. Briefs 526, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 56 (U.S. Dec. 23, 1987)

1490. WEST v. ATKINS, 1987 U.S. Briefs 5096, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 70 (U.S. Dec. 10, 1987)

1491. CHOO v. EXXON CORP., 1987 U.S. Briefs 505, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 94 (U.S. Sept. 21, 1987)

1492. AGENCY HOLDING CORP. v. MALLEY-DUFF & ASSOCS., 1986 U.S. Briefs 497, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 1278 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1987) 1493. AGENCY HOLDING CORP. v. MALLEY-DUFF & ASSOCS., 1986 U.S. Briefs 497, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 1279 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1987) 1494. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 971 (U.S. Nov.

4, 1986) 1495. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 974 (U.S. Nov.

4, 1986) 1496. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 978 (U.S. Nov. 4,

1986) 1497. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 976 (U.S. Sept.

5, 1986) 1498. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 969 (U.S. May

31, 1986) 1499. PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 979 (U.S. May 1,

1986) 1500. WRIGHT v. CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT & HOUS. AUTH., 1985 U.S. Briefs 5915, 1986 U.S.

Page 155

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 378 (U.S. Mar. 21, 1986) 1501. O'Connor v. Ortega, 1985 U.S. Briefs 530, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 491 (U.S. Mar. 18, 1986)

1502. O'CONNOR v. ORTEGA, 1985 U.S. Briefs 530, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 495 (U.S. Feb. 10, 1986)

1503. MEMPHIS COMMUNITY SCHS. v. STACHURA, 1985 U.S. Briefs 410, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 437

(U.S. Dec. 12, 1985) 1504. THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, et al., Petitioners, vs. ROBERT B. ELLIOTT, Respondent., 1985 U.S.

Briefs 588, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 490 (U.S. Oct. 3, 1985) 1505. PARSONS STEEL, INC. v. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985

U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1214 (U.S. Aug. 26, 1985) 1506. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, v. SCOTT E. EWING, Respondent., 1984

U.S. Briefs 1273, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 838 (U.S. Aug. 12, 1985) 1507. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS and MELBA L. PARSONS, and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in

Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1213 (U.S. Aug. 7, 1985)

1508. BERTOLD J. PEMBAUR, M.D., Petitioner, vs. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, HAMILTON COUNTY,

OHIO, HON. NORMAN A. MURDOCK, HON. JOSEPH M. DeCOURCY, JR., AND HON. ROBERT A. TAFT, II, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1160, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1231 (U.S. July 31, 1985)

1509. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS, MELBA L. PARSONS; and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in

Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1210 (U.S. May 2, 1985)

1510. PARSONS STEEL, INC., JIM D. PARSONS and MELBA L. PARSONS; and A. POPE GORDON, Trustee in

Bankruptcy for the Estate of PARSONS STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. FIRST ALABAMA BANK OF MONTGOMERY, N.A., and EDWARD HERBERT, Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1616, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1209 (U.S. Apr. 12, 1985)

1511. ROY E. DANIELS, Petitioner, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, Respondent., 1984 U.S. Briefs 5872, 1985 U.S. S.

Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1043 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1985) 1512. ATASCADERO STATE HOSP. v. SCANLON, 1984 U.S. Briefs 351, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1499

(U.S. Mar. 4, 1985) 1513. ATASCADERO STATE HOSP. v. SCANLON, 1984 U.S. Briefs 351, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1501

(U.S. Feb. 25, 1985) 1514. SPENCER v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 1984 U.S. Briefs 249, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1425 (U.S. Jan. 14, 1985) 1515. SPENCER v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 1984 U.S. Briefs 249, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1426 (U.S. Jan. 2, 1985) 1516. RICHARD WILSON and MARTIN VIGIL, Petitioners, v. GARY GARCIA, Respondent., 1983 U.S. Briefs

2146, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1174 (U.S. Dec. 11, 1984)

Page 156

1517. JEFFREY MAREK, THOMAS WADYCKI, and LAWRENCE RHODE, Petitioners, v. ALFRED W. CHESNY, Respondent., 1983 U.S. Briefs 1437, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1049 (U.S. Sept. 14, 1984)

1518. SPRINGFIELD TWP. SCH. DIST. v. KNOLL, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1889, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1207

(U.S. May 20, 1984) 1519. DAVIS v. LEE, 1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 666 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1984)

1520. BURNETT v. GRATTAN, 1983 U.S. Briefs 264, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 81 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1984)

1521. HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Appellant, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees; PORTLOCK

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellants, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees; KAHALA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. FRANK E. MIDKIFF, et al., Appellees., 1983 U.S. Briefs 141, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 139 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1984)

1522. WINSTON v. LEE, 1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 450 (U.S. Jan. 20, 1984)

1523. ANDREW J. WINSTON and AUBREY M. DAVIS, JR., Petitioners, v. RUDOLPH LEE, JR., Respondent.,

1983 U.S. Briefs 1334, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1138 (U.S. Dec. 13, 1983) 1524. INS v. LOPEZ-MENDOZA, 1983 U.S. Briefs 491, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1065 (U.S. Sept. 22,

1983) 1525. DAVIS v. SCHERER, 1983 U.S. Briefs 490, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1003 (U.S. Sept. 21, 1983)

1526. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, vs. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et

al., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 5 (U.S. Aug. 19, 1983) 1527. PORTLOCK COMMUNITY ASS'N v. MIDKIFF, 1983 U.S. Briefs 236, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1020

(U.S. Aug. 10, 1983) 1528. PORTLOCK COMMUNITY ASS'N v. MIDKIFF, 1983 U.S. Briefs 236, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1137

(U.S. Aug. 10, 1983) 1529. GLADYS PULLIAM, Petitioner v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN and JESSE W. NICHOLSON, Respondents, 1982

U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 154 (U.S. July 28, 1983) 1530. GLADYS PULLIAM, Petitioner, v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN, ET AL., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432,

1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 155 (U.S. July 26, 1983) 1531. GLADYS PULLIAM, Magistrate for the County of Culpeper, Virginia, Petitioner, v. RICHMOND R. ALLEN

and JESSE W. NICHOLSON, Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 209 (U.S. July 25, 1983)

1532. SPRINGFIELD TWP. SCH. DIST. v. KNOLL, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1889, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1194

(U.S. June 21, 1983) 1533. PULLIAM v. NICHOLSON, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 159 (U.S. June 9, 1983)

1534. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant, v. CONSTRUCTION

LABORERS VACATION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Appellees., 1982 U.S. Briefs 695, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1383 (U.S. Mar. 17, 1983)

1535. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent., 1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1353 (U.S. Mar. 16, 1983)

Page 157

1536. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, vs. THE WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF

EDUCATION, et al., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 9 (U.S. Feb. 28, 1983)

1537. DR. ETHEL D. MIGRA, Petitioner, v. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET

AL., Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 10 (U.S. Feb. 28, 1983) 1538. PULLIAM v. NICHOLSON, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1432, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 161 (U.S. Feb. 25, 1983)

1539. DR. ETHEL MIGRA, Petitioner, v. WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Respondents., 1982 U.S. Briefs 738, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 11 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1983) 1540. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner, v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent., 1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1352 (U.S. Jan. 31, 1983) 1541. BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., PETITIONER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

1981 U.S. Briefs 2257, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1354 (U.S. Jan. 28, 1983) 1542. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, et al. Petitioners, v. MARC FELDMAN AND

EDWARD J. HICKEY, JR. Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 1335, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 435 (U.S. Oct. 22, 1982)

1543. FRANK MARSH, et al., Petitioners, v. ERNEST CHAMBERS, Respondent., 1982 U.S. Briefs 23, 1982 U.S.

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 913 (U.S. Aug. 2, 1982) 1544. MORGAN M. FINLEY, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Petitioner, vs. TONI MURRAY,

Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 2205, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1082 (U.S. Mar. 10, 1982) 1545. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., Petitioners, v.

CLAIBORNE HARDWARE COMPANY, et al., Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 202, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1742 (U.S. Feb. 5, 1982)

1546. MIDDLESEX COUNTY ETHICS COMM. v. GARDEN STATE BAR ASS'N, 1981 U.S. Briefs 460, 1982 U.S.

S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 166 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1982) 1547. GEORGIA PATSY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, a Body

Corporate, For and On Behalf of, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1739 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1982)

1548. GEORGIA PATSY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A BODY

CORPORATE, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Respondents., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2050 (U.S. Dec. 9, 1981)

1549. Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 1980 U.S. Briefs 6045, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 503 (U.S. Oct.

19, 1981) 1550. KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONSTR. CORP., 1980 U.S. Briefs 6045, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 505

(U.S. Oct. 15, 1981) 1551. FINLEY v. MURRAY, 1980 U.S. Briefs 2205, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1256 (U.S. Oct. 1, 1981)

1552. ENGLE v. ISAAC, 1980 U.S. Briefs 1430, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1677 (U.S. Aug. 10, 1981)

1553. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Petitioner, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY and

Page 158

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1925, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 590 (U.S. May 15, 1981)

1554. PATSY v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF FLORIDA ex rel. FLORIDA INT'L UNIV., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1874,

1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2048 (U.S. May 7, 1981) 1555. CITY OF NEWPORT v. FACT CONCERTS, INC., 1980 U.S. Briefs 396, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1086 (U.S. Mar. 23, 1981) 1556. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, etc., et al., Petitioners, vs. LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, etc.,

Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1965 (U.S. Oct. 24, 1980) 1557. EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, etc., et al., Petitioners. vs. La SALLE NATIONAL BANK, Trustee, etc.,

Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2619 (U.S. Aug. 4, 1980) 1558. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. CALIFORNIA and THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR

THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, Petitioners, vs. GUILLERMO GALLEGO MUNOZ, HUMBERTO MARTINEZ, JUAN DE LEON, Respondents., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1003, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2613 (U.S. July 25, 1980)

1559. ALLEN v. MCCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1655 (U.S. July 7, 1980)

1560. MARVIN ALLEN, STEVEN JACOBSMEYER, UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, AND THE CITY OF ST.

LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petioners, v. WILLIE MCCURRY, Respondent., 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2545 (U.S. June 30, 1980)

1561. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL v. MUNOZ, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1003, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2174 (U.S.

May 24, 1980) 1562. ALLEN v. MCCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1653 (U.S. May 2, 1980)

1563. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2430 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1980)

1564. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2432 (U.S. Apr. 3, 1980)

1565. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2431 (U.S. Mar. 7, 1980)

1566. MAINE v. THIBOUTOT, 1979 U.S. Briefs 838, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2429 (U.S. Mar. 6, 1980)

1567. ROSEWELL v. LA SALLE NAT'L BANK, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1964 (U.S.

Feb. 25, 1980) 1568. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1980 U.S. S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 1942 (U.S. Feb. 14, 1980) 1569. ROSEWELL v. LA SALLE NAT'L BANK, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1157, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1925 (U.S.

Jan. 26, 1980) 1570. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1980 U.S. S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 1941 (U.S. Jan. 8, 1980) 1571. HARRISON v. PPG INDUS., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1918, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1206 (U.S. Dec. 22,

1979) 1572. ALLEN v. McCURRY, 1979 U.S. Briefs 935, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1022 (U.S. Dec. 14, 1979)

Page 159

1573. CITY OF ROME v. UNITED STATES, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1840, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1416 (U.S.

Sept. 21, 1979) 1574. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA v. CONSUMERS UNION, INC., 1979 U.S. Briefs 198, 1979 U.S. S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 1142 (U.S. Sept. 18, 1979) 1575. VANCE v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1588, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1288

(U.S. Aug. 25, 1979) 1576. MARTINEZ v. CALIFORNIA, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1268, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1705 (U.S. Aug. 20,

1979) 1577. Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 5703, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 554 (2d Cir.

Apr. 10, 2007) 1578. DR v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 351095, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1306 (2d Cir. Aug. 7,

2006) 1579. ABBAS v. DIXON, 2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 6219, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1033 (2d Cir. May 26,

2006) 1580. EVANDRO v. CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGMT. SERV., 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 9150,

2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 70 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2003) 1581. JIRICKO v. ALLISON, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4609, 2007 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 40 (3d Cir. Oct. 4,

2007) 1582. JIRICKO v. ALLISON, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4609, 2007 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 41 (3d Cir. Aug.

18, 2007) 1583. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.

Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 2247 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2006) 1584. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.

Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 2246 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2006) 1585. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir.

Briefs 2294, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1898 (3d Cir. July 31, 2006) 1586. HAWKINS v. PORITZ, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4361, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1518 (3d Cir. Dec.

16, 2005) 1587. TURNER v. CRAWFORD, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 660529, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1041 (3d Cir.

Sept. 26, 2005) 1588. DeSantis v. Franklin, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3582, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 476 (3d Cir. Dec.

20, 2004) 1589. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4528, 2003 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs

LEXIS 65 (3d Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) 1590. SOUTH CAMDEN CITIZENS IN ACTION v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROTECTION, 2001 U.S.

3rd Cir. Briefs 2224, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (3d Cir. July 26, 2001)

Page 160

1591. SOUTH CAMDEN CITIZENS IN ACTION v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROTECTION, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 2224, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 194 (3d Cir. July 13, 2001)

1592. THORN v. JEFFERSON-PILOT LIFE INS. CO., 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1162, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs

LEXIS 65 (4th Cir. May 26, 2005) 1593. TALBOT v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH CTR. COMM'N, 1996 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1915, 1996

U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 27 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 1996) 1594. HEALTH NET, INC. v. WOOLEY, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 423

(5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2007) 1595. HEALTH NET, INC. v. DONELON, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 422

(5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2007) 1596. ASHER v. A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC., 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30267, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs

LEXIS 481 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2007) 1597. HEALTH NET, INC. v. WOOLEY, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30607, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 421

(5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) 1598. STROMAN v. RICHARDSON, 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20095, 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 457 (5th

Cir. Apr. 18, 2006) 1599. In re Dr. Vines v. Univ. of LA, 2003 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 31172, 2004 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 52 (5th

Cir. Dec. 1, 2004) 1600. DR. VINES v. UNIV. OF LA, 2003 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 31172, 2004 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 49 (5th Cir.

Apr. 7, 2004) 1601. NEWBY v. ANDREW S. FASTOW; KINNETH L. LAY, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir.

Briefs LEXIS 35 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2002) 1602. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 34 (5th Cir. Oct. 15,

2002) 1603. NEWBY v. ANDREW S. FASTOW; KINNETH L. LAY, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20486, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir.

Briefs LEXIS 33 (5th Cir. Sept. 10, 2002) 1604. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 196 (5th Cir. May

28, 2002) 1605. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 197 (5th Cir. May

22, 2002) 1606. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 200 (5th Cir. May

15, 2002) 1607. Newby v. Enron Corp., 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 198 (5th Cir. May

14, 2002) 1608. NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (5th Cir. Apr.

27, 2002) 1609. STROMAN v. GRILLO, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 768894, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1028 (7th Cir.

Page 161

Sept. 26, 2006) 1610. SCHMITT v. SCHMITT, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 1470, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 477 (7th Cir.

Aug. 1, 2002) 1611. REED v. CHOICE HOTELS INT'L, 2009 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1351, 2009 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 535

(8th Cir. June 1, 2009) 1612. ANDERSON-TULLY v. MCDANIEL, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 3469, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 64

(8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) 1613. In re THE FAMILY OF KARI ANN JACOBSEN, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 358725, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir.

Briefs LEXIS 200 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2005) 1614. HERRANS v. MENDER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 1072B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1765 (D.P.R.

June 7, 2006) 1615. NICHIPORUK v. BOARD OF EDUC. of the PALMYRA-MACEDON CENT. SCH. DIST., 2005 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Briefs 6315, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 129 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2005) 1616. DOE v. BARROW COUNTY, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 72704, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1984

(N.D. Ga. July 8, 2005) 1617. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 10 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 2001) 1618. CHUNG v. Superior Court of California, 2009 CA S. Ct. Briefs 70087, 2009 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 608

(Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) 1619. VASQUEZ v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES & DOE, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs 57933, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs

LEXIS 2338 (Cal. Nov. 5, 2007) 1620. PERRYMAN v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs 56334, 2007 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

2107 (Cal. Sept. 10, 2007) 1621. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. AGUSTIN, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 15092A, 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

3274 (Cal. App. May 7, 2007) 1622. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. AGUSTIN, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 15092A, 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS

1225 (Cal. App. Feb. 14, 2007) 1623. MANNING v. MINING & MINERALS DIV. OF THE ENERGY, 2004 NM S. Ct. Briefs 500, 2004 NM S. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 5 (N.M. Sept. 22, 2004) 1624. PAYNTER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 2001 NY App. Div. Briefs 567, 2001 NY App. Div. Briefs LEXIS 56

(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 10, 2001) 1625. GILLESPIE v. CHAMBERS COUNTY, 2009 TX App. Ct. Briefs 97, 2009 TX App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1220

(Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. Mar. 27, 2009) 1626. BELL v. MORTGAGE ELEC. REGISTRATION SYS., 2006 TX App. Ct. Briefs 427, 2006 TX App. Ct.

Briefs LEXIS 772 (Tex. App. Dallas Oct. 24, 2006) 1627. The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.

Page 162

1628. The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.

MOTIONS ( 105 Citing Motions )

1629. DITOLLA v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions 58037, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions LEXIS 10 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2006)

1630. DITOLLA v. DORAL, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions 2324, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Motions LEXIS 9 (2d Cir. Aug.

7, 2006) 1631. GWIN v. PYROS, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 527, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8799 (W.D. Pa.

May 5, 2009) 1632. BRENNAN'S, INC. v. BRENNAN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6694, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

13893 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 6, 2009) 1633. PERFORMANCE DRILLING CO. v. H & H WELDING, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9185, 2009 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Motions LEXIS 2534 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2009) 1634. ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRIBE v. (1) DOUGLAS COMBS, DIST. COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY,

OKLAHOMA, & (2) SHANTONA BITTLE, individually, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 90091, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 33285 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2009)

1635. PARKER v. YUBA COUNTY WATER DIST., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 838572, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 12219 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) 1636. MANDRIGUES v. WORLD SAV., INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 641337, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 13385 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2009) 1637. Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 67892

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2008) 1638. IANTOSCA v. BENISTAR ADMIN SERVS., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11785, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 84605 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2008) 1639. WOODROFFE v. McCOLLUM, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

67891 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2008) 1640. TURNER v. CITY OF AUBURN, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 398886, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

51964 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2008) 1641. GORDON v. CHENEY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1294, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 72057

(D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2008) 1642. RURAL v. CITY, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 937373, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 57998 (D. Kan.

Aug. 8, 2008) 1643. Boivin v. Town of Addison, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 106923, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 21226

(D. Vt. July 17, 2008) 1644. KEATING v. CITY OF MIAMI, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 23005, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

64379 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2008) 1645. KEATING v. CITY OF MIAMI, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 23005, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

64378 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2008)

Page 163

1646. ST. MARY'S HOSP., INC. v. STERICYCLE, INC., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80369, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 22839 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2008) 1647. WISE v. Argentine, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 94655, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 55512 ( E.D.

Mich. May 5, 2008) 1648. CSWS LLC v. VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80747, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 36753 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2008) 1649. CSWS LLC v. VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80747, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 36752 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008) 1650. TAYLOR v. CITY OF NEW YORK DEP'T OF HOUS. PRESERVATION & DEV., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 8150, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15454 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2008) 1651. RURAL v. CITY OF EUDORA, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 856589, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

32279 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2008) 1652. WARD v. SIMPERS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73266, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 25655 (D. Md.

Feb. 20, 2008) 1653. NORTH DAKOTA ex rel. STENEHJEM v. SIMPLE, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 685459, 2008 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Motions LEXIS 42060 (D.N.D. Feb. 19, 2008) 1654. WARD v. SIMPERS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73266, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 25654 (D. Md.

Feb. 8, 2008) 1655. MADERA v. AMERIQUEST MORTG. CO., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1396, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 416 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2008) 1656. McNAMARA v. KAYE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5169, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46234

(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2008) 1657. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. VONAGE AMERICA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

334804, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 54852 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2007) 1658. VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. CRESCENT FORD TRUCK SALES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 3127, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 72109 (E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2007) 1659. HOAI v. SUPERIOR COURT of the DIST. of COLUMBIA, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 118111, 2007 U.S.

Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53931 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2007) 1660. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 307384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 88844 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2007) 1661. PALMIERI v. TOWN OF BABYLON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 617741, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 86096 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) 1662. 66 EAST ALLENDALE, L.L.C. v. BOROUGH OF SADDLE RIVER, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 22010,

2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53390 (D.N.J. May 15, 2007) 1663. HOGAN v. FRESNO COUNTY, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6408, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

7568 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2007)

Page 164

1664. WILLETTE v. CITY OF WATERVILLE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 95820, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27420 (D. Me. Mar. 30, 2007)

1665. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 735835, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6075

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2007) 1666. BENNETT v. MONETTE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 211600, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 18371

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2007) 1667. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 735835, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5864

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2007) 1668. Smith v. ABN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 45E, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 1323 (S.D. Ohio Mar.

13, 2007) 1669. UNITED STATES v. PENNY LANE PARTNERS, L.P., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 392231, 2007 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Motions LEXIS 17869 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2007) 1670. NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. v. TRANS PAC. OIL CORP., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1418, 2007

U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 88967 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2007) 1671. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

1584 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) 1672. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 1586 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) 1673. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

1583 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2007) 1674. BANK OF AMERICA v. MILLER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61971, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

1585 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2007) 1675. UNITED STATES EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 3768, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 46526 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2006) 1676. EEOC v. CUSTOM COS., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 3768, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46543

(N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2006) 1677. GRAMBLING v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIV. OF LOUISIANA SYS., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 1571, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 47262 (W.D. La. Dec. 11, 2006) 1678. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 439967, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 57540 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2006) 1679. STODDARD v. FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 190578, 2006 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Motions LEXIS 52129 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006) 1680. STODDARD v. FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 190578, 2006 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Motions LEXIS 53007 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006) 1681. DOLL v. NEW HOLSTEIN SCH. DIST., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2820, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 58188 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2006) 1682. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

Page 165

48565 (M.D. La. Oct. 2, 2006) 1683. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

48566 (M.D. La. Sept. 17, 2006) 1684. BOWERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 762872, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 95785 (E.D. Pa. Sept.

13, 2006) 1685. MOORE, JR. v. LOUISIANA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 389352, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

48563 (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2006) 1686. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA AREA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 671B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 30822 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2006) 1687. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. McCANN, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 8744 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2006) 1688. JAMISON v. TUPELO, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 495387, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 95161

(N.D. Miss. June 30, 2006) 1689. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 8742 (N.D. Fla. June 9, 2006) 1690. DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF LAS VEGAS, L.L.C. v. NEVADA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 480, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7992 (D. Nev. June 5, 2006) 1691. BENNETT v. LAKE COUNTY BD. OF MENTAL RETARDATION & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES,

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 172812, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 83180 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2006) 1692. FERNANDEZ v. PFIZER, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2236A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 20002

(D.P.R. May 2, 2006) 1693. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 852695, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 102389 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2006) 1694. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. SORENSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 194A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 8743 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2006) 1695. REINSMITH v. CASTLE POINT MORTG., INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11168, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 46685 (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2006) 1696. RETAIL INDUS. LEADERS ASS'N v. FIELDER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9510, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 8075 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2006) 1697. REINSMITH v. CASTLE POINT MORTG., INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11168, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 46638 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2006) 1698. PARAGON MGMT. v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - IRS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 487, 2006

U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7325 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 6, 2006) 1699. TEAFORD v. CITY OF SELAH, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 53027, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS

77228 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2006) 1700. LYTLE v. HARDIN COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7254A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 20618 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2006)

Page 166

1701. COLLIN COUNTY v. SIEMENS BUS. SERVS., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 924220, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 79005 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2006) 1702. BRYAN v. BELLSOUTH TELCOMS., INC., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 228, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 79078 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2006) 1703. OLD STD. LIFE INS. CO. IN REHABILITATION v. DUCKHUNT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 536, 2005

U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 24956 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 2005) 1704. OLD STD. LIFE INS. CO. IN REHABILITATION v. DUCKHUNT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 536, 2005

U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 24957 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 2005) 1705. STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. GRILLO, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2066, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 38461 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2005) 1706. DELCO v. Brown, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 879413, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 36071

(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2005) 1707. COREGIS INS. CO. v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1861, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 16372 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1708. COREGIS INS. CO. v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1861, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 16376 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1709. Coregis Ins. Co. v. City Of Harrisburg, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 127843, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 56375 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2005) 1710. DAVIS INT'L, LLC, HOLDEX, LLC, FOSTON MGMT. v. NEW START GROUP CORP., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 199565, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 52498 (D. Del. June 27, 2005) 1711. PRETLOW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BD. OF SOC. SERVS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2885, 2005

U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32043 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2005) 1712. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14035 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 12, 2004) 1713. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6855 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2004) 1714. CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYS. v. ITT EDUC. SERVS., INC., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

380, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14036 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2004) 1715. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG. v. Wyeth, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 9349 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2004) 1716. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 6753 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2004) 1717. Kircher v. City of Ypsilanti, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 72449, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15658 (

E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2004) 1718. MAGRUM v. MEINKE, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7306, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 17813 (N.D.

Ohio May 25, 2004)

Page 167

1719. ESSO STD. OIL CO. v. COTTO, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 541968, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 23231 (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2004)

1720. COMCAST CABLE OF PLANO, INC. v. CITY OF PLANO, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 872107, 2003 U.S.

Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15573 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2003) 1721. BLANDO v. NEXTEL COMMUNS., INC., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 332756, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 17522 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 24, 2003) 1722. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2310, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 8266 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003) 1723. In re DPL INC. SECS. LITIG., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 355, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6836

(S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2003) 1724. NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. CO. v. REYNOLDS, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 21, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 7237 (S.D. W. Va. May 9, 2002) 1725. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. HOLMES COUNTY, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 862, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions LEXIS 6293 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 20, 2001) 1726. In re DIET DRUGS PRODS. LIAB. LITIG. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODS. CORP., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Motions 2310, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6260 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2001) 1727. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 6625 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1728. In re: PROPULSID PRODS., LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 6042 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1729. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 6527 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2001) 1730. In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 6522 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2001) 1731. In re SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABS., INC. LAB. TEST BILLING PRACTICES LITIG. v.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABS., INC., 1997 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1795, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7412 (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2000)

1732. Bartel v. Walsh, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 1161, 2008 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 3377 (Bankr. D.

Mass. Aug. 6, 2008) 1733. In re EARNED CAPITAL CORP., 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 2496, 2008 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions

LEXIS 2138 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2008) PLEADINGS ( 11 Citing Pleadings )

1734. CHUNG v. JOHNSTON, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2615, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 9215 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009)

1735. Rio v. Abbott, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 509177, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 7394 (D.D.C.

May 4, 2009) 1736. Bankston v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2233, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 1531

Page 168

(D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2009) 1737. Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6488

(M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2008) 1738. Bankston v. IRS, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2233, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 10207 (D. Colo.

Oct. 15, 2008) 1739. Bolte v. Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 920573, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings

LEXIS 4290 (W.D. Wash. May 27, 2008) 1740. Boivin v. Town of Addison, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 106923, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS

1668 (D. Vt. Mar. 21, 2008) 1741. Howard v. Ohio Supreme Court, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 514, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS

4722 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2007) 1742. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Pleadings 439967, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 2156 (M.D. Pa. June 8, 2007) 1743. CAPITAL CITY CAB SERV. v. SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTH., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.

Pleadings 671B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 4709 (M.D. Pa. June 16, 2006) 1744. Augustin v. DanversBank, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 10368, 2006 U.S. Dist.

Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6801 (D. Mass. Mar. 1, 2006)