Page 1
LEXSEE 380 US 479
Questioned
As of: Nov 29, 2009
DOMBROWSKI ET AL. v. PFISTER, CHAIRMAN, JOINT LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE ON UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE, ET AL.
No. 52
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
380 U.S. 479; 85 S. Ct. 1116; 14 L. Ed. 2d 22; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
January 25, 1965, Argued
April 26, 1965, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
DISPOSITION:
manded.
227 F.Supp. 556, reversed and re-
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant civil rights'
activists sought review of a judgment from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
dismissing appellants' complaint that sought relief under
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 and declaratory
and injunctive relief to restrain appellee government officials from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute appellants for alleged subversive, communist activities.
OVERVIEW: Appellants invoked the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983, in order to restrain appellee government officials from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute appellants for alleged violations of the Louisiana
Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and
the Communist Propaganda Control Law. The Court
reversed the district court's judgment dismissing appellants' complaint on the grounds that it did not present a
case of threatened irreparable injury to federal rights that
warranted cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of state criminal prosecutions. The Court ruled that appellants' allegations, if
true, clearly showed irreparable injury because they depicted a situation in which defense of the state's criminal
prosecution would not assure adequate vindication of
constitutional rights. The allegations suggested that a
substantial loss or impairment of freedoms of expression
would occur if appellants had to await the state court's
disposition and ultimate review in the Court of any adverse determination.
OUTCOME: The Court reversed the district court's
judgment.
CORE TERMS: subversive, communist, criminal prosecution, abstention, indictments, injunction, vagueness,
seizure, arrest, Communist Control Law, front, Communist Propaganda Control Law, narrowing construction, irreparable injury, freedoms of expression, indicted,
register, invalid, injunctive relief, equitable, civil rights,
communist front, protected expression, overly broad,
declaratory, vindication, restraining, impairment, discourage, safeguards
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Page 2
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Injunctions > Elements
> General Overview
Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedents
[HN1] It is assumed that state courts and prosecutors
observe constitutional limitations as expounded by the
United States Supreme Court. The mere possibility of
erroneous initial application of constitutional standards
will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships >
Anti-Injunction Acts > Anti-Injunction Act
[HN2] See 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2283.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Freedom of Speech > General Overview
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Governments > Legislation > Overbreadth
[HN3] When the statutes also have an overbroad sweep,
the hazard of loss or substantial impairment of precious
First Amendment rights may be critical. The assumption
that defense of a criminal prosecution will generally assure ample vindication of constitutional rights is unfounded in such cases. The threat of sanctions may deter
almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.
Because of the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression, attacks on overly broad
statutes are permitted with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct
could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. The chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights may derive from the fact
of the prosecution, unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships >
Abstention
Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Constitutional Questions > General Overview
[HN4] The abstention doctrine is inappropriate for cases
where statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as
abridging free expression, or as applied for the purpose
of discouraging protected activities.
Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Jurisdictional Sources
> Statutory Sources
Civil Procedure > Equity > Irreparable Injury
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Injunctions > General
Overview
[HN5] Where prosecutions are actually threatened, a
challenge to the pertinent statutes as overly broad and
vague regulations of expression, if not clearly frivolous,
will establish the threat of irreparable injury required by
traditional doctrines of equity. In considering whether
injunctive relief should be granted, a federal district court
should consider a statute as of the time its jurisdiction is
invoked, rather than some hypothetical future date.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Rights > Procedural Due Process > Scope of Protection
Governments > Legislation > Interpretation
[HN6] Once an acceptable limiting construction of a
criminal statute is obtained, it may be applied to conduct
occurring prior to the construction, provided such application affords fair warning to a defendant.
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Injunctions > General
Overview
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Governments > Legislation > Vagueness
[HN7] District courts retain power to modify injunctions
in light of changed circumstances. The vagueness doctrine does not preclude district courts from modifying
injunctions to permit prosecutions in light of subsequent
state court interpretation clarifying the application of a
statute to particular conduct.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Freedom of Speech > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure >
Search Warrants > General Overview
Governments > Legislation > Overbreadth
[HN8] So long as an overly broad statute remains available to the State the threat of prosecutions of protected
expression is a real and substantial one. Even the prospect of ultimate failure of such prosecutions by no
means dispels their chilling effect on protected expression.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Page 3
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
Governments > Federal Government > Domestic Security
[HN9] Since ß 364(4) of the Subversive Activities and
Communist Control Law (Louisiana) is so intimately
bound up with a definition invalid as unduly vague, uncertain and broad, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that it is
invalid for the same reasons. The registration requirement of ß 364(7) of the Law is invalid. That section creates an offense of failure to register as a member of a
Communist-front organization.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Criminal Law & Procedure > Trials > Burdens of
Proof > Prosecution
[HN10] Where the transcendent value of speech is involved, due process certainly requires that the state bear
the burden of persuasion to show that the accused engaged in criminal speech.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > Judicial & Legislative Restraints > Overbreadth & Vagueness
Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses >
Crimes Against Persons > Terrorism > Terroristic Acts
> General Overview
Governments > Federal Government > Domestic Security
[HN11] Section 364 of the Subversive Activities and
Communist Control Law (Louisiana), resting on the invalid presumption that an organization is a communist
front organization, is unconstitutional on its face.
SUMMARY:
The plaintiffs, an organization and individuals active
in fostering civil rights for Negroes in Louisiana, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking declaratory relief
and an injunction restraining defendants from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute plaintiffs for alleged violations of the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and the Louisiana Communist Propaganda Control Law. The complaint alleged that the statutes were invalid on their face and that the threats to enforce them against the plaintiffs were made only to discourage them from continuing their civil rights activities.
A three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (227 F Supp 556.)
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Brennan, J., expressing the
views of five members of the Court, it was held that (1)
the complaint alleged sufficient irreparable injury to justify equitable relief, (2) it was improper for the District
Court to abstain from a decision pending authoritative
state court interpretation of the statutes, since the abstention doctrine is inapplicable in cases in which statutes are
justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free expression or as applied for the purpose of discouraging
protected activities, (3) the statute making it a felony to
participate in the formation or management or to contribute to the support of "any subversive organization,"
as defined in the statute, was invalid on the ground of
vagueness, and (4) the statute creating an offense of failure to register as a member of a Communist-front organization was invalid because containing an invalid presumption as to the status of the organizations affected by
the statute.
Harlan and Clark, JJ., dissented on the Court's holding under (2), supra, expressing the view that the District
Court should have retained jurisdiction for the purpose of
affording plaintiffs appropriate relief in the event that the
state prosecution did not go forward in a prompt and
bona fide manner.
Black and Stewart, JJ., did not participate.
LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:
[***LEdHN1]
COURTS ß691
federal injunction against state proceedings -Headnote:[1A][1B]
The federal statute (28 USC 2283) which forbids a
United States court to stay proceedings in a state court
does not preclude injunctions against the institution of
state court proceedings, but only bars stays of suits already instituted.
[***LEdHN2]
COURTS ß699
federal injunction against state proceeding -- what is
a "proceeding" -Headnote:[2A][2B]
No state "proceedings" are pending within the intendment of 28 USC 2283, forbidding a United States
court to stay proceedings in a state court, where the state
grand jury was not convened and state indictments were
not obtained until after the filing of a complaint in a federal court seeking injunctive relief against the criminal
prosecutions.
Page 4
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
[***LEdHN3]
COURTS ß699
federal injunction against state proceedings -Headnote:[3A][3B]
A threat of criminal prosecution sufficient to justify
equitable intervention is not a "proceeding" within the
meaning of 28 USC 2283, forbidding a United States
court to stay proceedings in a state court.
[***LEdHN4]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state proceedings -Headnote:[4]
A federal injunction interfering with a state's goodfaith administration of its criminal laws is peculiarly inconsistent with the federal framework of the United
States Constitution.
[***LEdHN5]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state criminal proceedings
-- irreparable injury -Headnote:[5]
The mere possibility of erroneous initial application
of constitutional standards will usually not amount to the
irreparable injury necessary to justify a federal injunction
against orderly state criminal proceedings, it being generally assumed that state courts and prosecutors will observe constitutional limitations as expounded by the
United States Supreme Court.
[***LEdHN6]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state criminal proceedings
-- irreparable injury -Headnote:[6]
Irreparable injury, as a prerequisite of a federal injunction against threatened state criminal proceedings, is
shown by allegations in a complaint depicting a situation
in which defense of the prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights, and suggesting
that a substantial loss or impairment of freedom of expression will occur if plaintiffs must await the state
court's disposition and ultimate review in the United
States Supreme Court of any adverse determination.
[***LEdHN7]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state proceedings -- assumptions -Headnote:[7]
The assumption, ordinarily precluding federal injunctions against state criminal proceedings, that defense
of the prosecution will generally assure ample vindication of constitutional rights, is unfounded in a case in
which the prosecution is under a statute regulating expression and having an overbroad sweep.
[***LEdHN8]
STATUTES ß37
criminal -- standing to attack -Headnote:[8]
An overly broad criminal statute regulating expression may be attacked with no requirement that the person
making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct
could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity; this is so even though successful
prosecution is improbable.
[***LEdHN9]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state criminal proceedings
-- irreparable injury -Headnote:[9]
A complaint alleges sufficient irreparable injury justifying equitable relief by a federal court against threatened state criminal prosecutions, where it is alleged that
the measures taken by the police and the prosecutor, together with repeated announcements that the plaintiff
organization is a subversive or Communist-front organization whose members must register or be prosecuted
under state statutes, frightened off potential members and
contributors; seizures of documents and records paralyzed operations and threatened exposure of the identity
of adherents to a locally unpopular cause; notwithstanding the quashing in the state courts of a particular seizure, the continuing threat of prosecution portends further arrests and seizures, some of which may be upheld
and all of which will cause the organization inconvenience or worse; and threats were made to enforce statutory provisions other than those under which indictments
had been brought, there being no immediate prospect of
a final state adjudication as to those other provisions.
[***LEdHN10]
COURTS ß757.5
Page 5
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
abstention doctrine -Headnote:[10A][10B]
The doctrine under which a federal court should abstain from deciding the constitutionality of a state statute
pending its authoritative interpretation in the state courts
is inappropriate for cases in which a state statute is justifiably attacked on its face as abridging free expression,
or as applied for the purpose of discouraging activities
protected by federal law.
[***LEdHN11]
CIVIL RIGHTS ß12.5
criminal proceeding before it may seek modification of
the injunction to permit future prosecutions.
[***LEdHN14]
STATUTES ß18
vagueness -Headnote:[14A][14B]
Once an acceptable limiting construction of an overly broad and vague criminal statute is obtained, the statute may be applied to conduct occurring prior to the construction, provided such application affords fair warning
to the defendants.
violation -- liability -Headnote:[11]
A complaint alleging that state officers invoked, and
threatened to invoke, criminal process without any hope
of ultimate success, but only to discourage plaintiffs'
civil rights activities, states a claim under the Civil
Rights Act (42 USC 1983), which gives a right of action
against a person who, under color of state law, subjects
another to the deprivation of any rights secured by the
Federal Constitution.
[***LEdHN12]
COURTS ß698
federal injunction against state criminal proceedings
-Headnote:[12]
In determining the propriety of granting injunctive
relief against the enforcement of a state criminal statute
challenged as an overly broad and vague regulation of
expression, a Federal District Court should consider the
statute as of the time its jurisdiction is invoked, rather
than as of some hypothetical future date.
[***LEdHN13]
COURTS ß698
prerequisites of federal injunction against state criminal prosecution -Headnote:[13A][13B]
Those affected by a state criminal statute are entitled
to a federal injunction against threatened criminal prosecution, where no readily apparent construction suggests
itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statute in a single
prosecution; the state must, if it is to invoke the statute
after injunctive relief has been sought, assume the burden
of obtaining a permissible narrow construction in a non-
[***LEdHN15]
COURTS ß757.5
doctrine of abstention -- vagueness of criminal statute -Headnote:[15A][15B]
A federal court's abstention from deciding the constitutionality of a state statute pending its authoritative
interpretation in the state courts serves no legitimate purpose where a state criminal statute regulating speech is
properly attacked on its face on the ground of vagueness,
and the conduct charged against the plaintiffs is neither
within the reach of an acceptable limiting construction
readily to be anticipated as the result of a single criminal
prosecution nor the sort of "hard-core" conduct that
would obviously be prohibited under any construction.
[***LEdHN16]
INJUNCTION ß142
modification -Headnote:[16]
A Federal District Court retains power to modify injunctions in the light of changed circumstances.
[***LEdHN17]
STATUTES ß18
vagueness -- subversive activities -Headnote:[17]
Unconstitutional vagueness invalidates a state statute which makes it a felony for any person knowingly to
assist in the formation or participate in the management
or to contribute to the support of any subversive organization, and which defines "a subversive organization" as
one which engages in or advocates, abets, or teaches, or a
purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, or
Page 6
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
teach, activities intended to overthrow the constitutional
form of the government of the state.
[***LEdHN18]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ß840.3
due process -- Communist-front organizations -presumption -Headnote:[18]
Due process is violated by a state statute which, in
creating an offense of failure to register as a member of a
Communist-front organization, provides that the fact that
an organization has been officially cited by the Attorney
General of the United States, the Subversive Activities
Control Board of the United States, or any committee or
subcommittee of the United States Congress, as a Communist-front organization, will be considered presumptive evidence of the factual status of such organization,
but does not require that the organizations have been so
cited only after compliance by the congressional committees with the procedural safeguards of notice and hearing.
[***LEdHN19]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ß840.3
due process -- burden of proof -Headnote:[19]
Due process requires that the state bear the burden
of persuasion to show that one it seeks to hold responsible for utterances engaged in criminal speech.
[***LEdHN20]
COURTS ß757.5
federal injunction against state criminal prosecution
-- abstention doctrine -Headnote:[20]
A Federal District Court should not await a state
court interpretation of state criminal statutes before deciding, in proceedings for injunctive relief against threatened prosecution under the statutes, whether the defendant state officials threatened to enforce the statutes solely
to discourage plaintiffs from continuing their civil rights
activities, and to what relief the plaintiffs may be entitled
on the basis of their attacks on these statutes.
SYLLABUS
Appellants, a civil rights organization and its executive director, brought suit in Federal District Court, in
which other individuals later joined, for injunctive and
declaratory relief to restrain appellees from prosecuting
or threatening to prosecute them under Louisiana's Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and
Communist Propaganda Control Law, which they alleged
violated their rights of free expression under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellants contended that
the statutes were excessively broad and susceptible of
application in violation of those rights, and were being
used by appellees in bad faith, not to secure valid convictions, but to deter appellants' civil rights efforts. Appellants alleged and offered to prove the arrest of the individual appellants under the statutes, the raiding of their
offices and illegal seizure of their records, with continued threats of prosecution after invalidation by a state
court of the arrests and seizure of evidence preceding this
action. A three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted, also holding that abstention was appropriate
pending a possible narrowing construction by the state
courts which would avoid unnecessary constitutional
adjudication. Thereafter, appellants alleged, the individual appellants were indicted under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law. They also claimed that
there was no prospect of final state adjudications either
under those indictments or under threatened additional
prosecutions. Held:
1. The mere possibility of erroneous initial application of constitutional standards by a state court will not
ordinarily constitute irreparable injury warranting federal
interference with a good-faith prosecution and the adjudication during its course of constitutional defenses. Pp.
484-485.
2. But equitable relief will be granted to prevent a
substantial loss or impairment of freedoms of expression
resulting from prosecution under an excessively broad
statute regulating expression. Pp. 485-489.
(a) Defense of a criminal prosecution will not generally assure ample vindication of First Amendment rights.
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, followed. Pp. 485-486.
(b) A chilling effect upon First Amendment rights
might result from such prosecution regardless of its prospects of success or failure, as is indicated by appellants'
representations of the actions taken under the statutes.
Pp. 487-489.
3. The abstention doctrine is inappropriate where a
statute is justifiably attacked on its face, or as applied for
the purpose of discouraging protected activities. Pp.
489-491.
(a) The state court's ultimate interpretation of a statute would be irrelevant to meet the claim that it was being applied to discourage civil rights activities. P. 490.
Page 7
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
(b) Abstention is inappropriate where a statute regulating speech is properly attacked on its face as being
unconstitutionally vague. Pp. 490-491.
(c) Appellants are entitled to an injunction where, as
here, no readily apparent construction is available to
bring the statute within constitutional confines in a single
prosecution, and it is not alleged that their conduct would
fall within any conceivable narrowing construction. P.
491.
(d) The State must assume the burden of securing a
permissible narrow construction of the statute in a noncriminal proceeding before it may seek modification of
the injunction to permit future prosecutions thereunder.
P. 491.
4. The statutory definition of "a subversive organization" in ß 359 (5) of the Louisiana Subversive Activities
and Communist Control Law, incorporated in the offense
created by ß 364 (4), under which two of the individual
appellants were indicted, results in an overly broad regulation of speech, invalid for the same reasons as held in
Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, which involved a substantially
similar definition. Pp. 493-494.
5. Section 364 (7), creating an offense for failure to
register as a member of a "Communist Front Organization," under which each of the individual defendants was
indicted, is on its face invalid because of its constitutionally impermissible presumption of such status if the organization had been cited as a Communist front by designated federal instrumentalities, there being no requirement in the statute of compliance in the process of such
citation with procedural safeguards as demanded by AntiFascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123. Pp. 494496.
6. The District Court shall enjoin prosecution of the
pending indictments against the individual appellants,
order immediate return of documents seized and prohibit
further enforcement of the sections of the Subversive
Activities and Communist Control Law here found void
on their face. Without abstention, it shall decide what
relief appellants may be entitled to on the basis of their
attacks on other sections of that statute, their attacks on
the Communist Propaganda Control Law, and the remaining issues raised in the complaint. Pp. 497-498.
COUNSEL: Leon Hubert and Arthur Kinoy argued the
cause for appellants. With them on the brief were William M. Kunstler, Michael J. Kunstler and A. P. Tureaud.
John E. Jackson, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Louisiana, and Jack N. Rogers argued the cause for appellees.
With them on the brief for appellees Pfister et al. were
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana,
and Dorothy D. Wolbrette, Assistant Attorney General.
With Mr. Rogers on the brief for appellee Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities was Robert
H. Reiter. Mr. Reiter also filed a brief for appellee Davis. Appellee Jim Garrison filed a brief pro se.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Jack
Greenberg, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., and Jay H. Topkis for
the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund; by Louis Lusky and Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil
Liberties Union et al.; and by Ernest Goodman and David Rein for the National Lawyers Guild.
JUDGES: Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan,
White, Goldberg; Black took no part in the consideration
or decision of this case; Stewart took no part in the decision of this case.
OPINION BY: BRENNAN
OPINION
[*481]
[***25]
[**1118] MR. JUSTICE
BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, invoking the [***26]
Civil [*482] Rights Act, Rev. Stat. ß 1979, 42 U. S. C. ß
1983 (1958 ed.), and seeking declaratory relief and an
injunction restraining appellees -- the Governor, police
and law enforcement officers, and the Chairman of the
Legislative Joint Committee on Un-American Activities
in Louisiana -- from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute appellants for alleged violations of the Louisiana
Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and
the Communist Propaganda Control Law. 1 Appellant
Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc. (SCEF), is
active in fostering civil rights for Negroes in Louisiana
and other States of the South. Appellant Dombrowski is
its Executive Director; intervenor Smith, its Treasurer;
and intervenor Waltzer, Smith's law partner and an attorney for SCEF. The complaint alleges that the statutes on
their face violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment
guarantees securing freedom of expression, because
overbreadth makes them susceptible of sweeping and
improper application abridging those rights. Supported
by affidavits and a written offer of proof, the complaint
further alleges that the threats to enforce the statutes
against appellants are not made with any expectation
[**1119] of securing valid convictions, but rather are
part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of
prosecution under color of the statutes to harass appellants and discourage them and their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate the constitutional
rights of Negro citizens of Louisiana.
Page 8
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
1
The Subversive Activities and Communist
Control Law is La. Rev. Stat. ßß 14:358 through
14:374 (Cum. Supp. 1962). The Communist
Propaganda Control Law is La. Rev. Stat. ßß
14:390 through 14:390.8 (Cum. Supp. 1962).
A three-judge district court, convened pursuant to
28 U. S. C. ß 2281 (1958 ed.), dismissed the complaint,
one judge dissenting, "for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted." 227 F.Supp. 556, 564. The
majority [*483] were of the view that the allegations,
conceded to raise serious constitutional issues, did not
present a case of threatened irreparable injury to federal
rights which warranted cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of state criminal prosecutions; rather, the majority held, this was an
appropriate case for abstention, since a possible narrowing construction by the state courts would avoid unnecessary decision of constitutional questions. In accordance with this view the court withdrew its initial determination that the statutes were not unconstitutional on
their face. 227 F.Supp., at 562-563. Postponement of
consideration of the federal issues until state prosecution
and possible review here of adverse state determination
was thought to be especially appropriate since the statutes concerned the State's "basic right of selfpreservation" and the threatened prosecution was "imbued . . . with an aura of sedition or treason or acts designed to substitute a different form of local government
by other than lawful means . . ."; federal court interference with enforcement of such statutes "truly . . . would
be a massive emasculation of the last vestige of the dignity of sovereignty." 227 F.Supp., at 559, 560. We noted
probable jurisdiction in order to resolve a seeming conflict with our later decision in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S.
360, and to settle important questions concerning federal
injunctions against state criminal prosecutions threatening constitutionally [***27] protected expression. 377
U.S. 976. We reverse.
I.
[***LEdHR1A] [1A] [***LEdHR2A]
[***LEdHR3A]
[3A] [***LEdHR4]
[***LEdHR5] [5]
[2A]
[4]
In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, the fountainhead
of federal injunctions against state prosecutions, the
Court characterized the power and its proper exercise in
broad terms: it would be justified where state officers ". .
. threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either
of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties
[*484] affected an unconstitutional act, violating the
Federal Constitution . . . ." 209 U.S., at 156. Since that
decision, however, considerations of federalism have
tempered the exercise of equitable power, 2 for the Court
has recognized that [**1120] federal interference with a
State's good-faith administration of its criminal laws is
peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework.
[HN1] It is generally to be assumed that state courts and
prosecutors will observe constitutional limitations as
expounded by this Court, and that the mere possibility of
erroneous initial application [*485] of constitutional
standards will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings. In Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157,
for example, the Court upheld a district court's refusal to
enjoin application of a city ordinance to religious solicitation, even though the ordinance was that very day held
unconstitutional as so applied on review of a criminal
conviction under it. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105. Since injunctive relief looks to the future, and it was
not alleged that Pennsylvania courts and prosecutors
would fail to respect the Murdock ruling, the Court found
nothing to justify an injunction. And in a variety of other
contexts the Court has found no special circumstances to
warrant cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of a criminal prosecution. 3
In such cases [***28] it does not appear that the plaintiffs "have been threatened with any injury other than
that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith, or that a federal court of equity
by withdrawing the determination of guilt from the state
courts could rightly afford petitioners any protection
which they could not secure by prompt trial and appeal
pursued to this Court." Douglas v. City of Jeannette, supra, at 164.
[***LEdHR1B]
[***LEdHR3B] [3B]
[1B]
[***LEdHR2B]
[2B]
2 28 U. S. C. ß 2283 (1958 ed.) provides that:
[HN2] "A court of the United States may not
grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State
court except as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."
The District Court did not suggest that this statute
denied power to issue the injunctions sought.
This statute and its predecessors do not preclude
injunctions against the institution of state court
proceedings, but only bar stays of suits already
instituted. See Ex parte Young, supra. See generally Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 366-378 (1930);
Note, Federal Power to Enjoin State Court Proceedings, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 726, 728-729 (1961).
Since the grand jury was not convened and indictments were not obtained until after the filing
of the complaint, which sought interlocutory as
well as permanent relief, no state "proceedings"
were pending within the intendment of ß 2283.
Page 9
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
To hold otherwise would mean that any threat of
prosecution sufficient to justify equitable intervention would also be a "proceeding" for ß 2283.
Nor are the subsequently obtained indictments
"proceedings" against which injunctive relief is
precluded by ß 2283. The indictments were obtained only because the District Court erroneously dismissed the complaint and dissolved the
temporary restraining order issued by Judge Wisdom in aid of the jurisdiction of the District Court
properly invoked by the complaint. We therefore
find it unnecessary to resolve the question whether suits under 42 U. S. C. ß 1983 (1958 ed.) come
under the "expressly authorized" exception to ß
2283. Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d
119, 124 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1950), with Smith v. Village of Lansing, 241 F.2d 856, 859 (C. A. 7th
Cir. 1957). See Note, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 726, 738
(1961).
3 See, e. g., Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312
U.S. 45 (mere threat of single prosecution);
Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295
U.S. 89 (same); Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387 (no
irreparable injury or constitutional infirmity in
statute); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240 (same).
It is difficult to think of a case in which an accused could properly bring a state prosecution to
a halt while a federal court decides his claim that
certain evidence is rendered inadmissible by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Cleary v. Bolger,
371 U.S. 392; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117.
[***LEdHR6] [6]But the allegations in this complaint depict a situation in which defense of the State's
criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication
of constitutional rights. [*486] They suggest that a substantial loss or impairment of freedoms of expression
will occur if appellants must await the state court's disposition and ultimate review in this Court of any adverse
determination. These allegations, if true, clearly show
irreparable injury.
[***LEdHR7] [7] [***LEdHR8] [8]A criminal prosecution under a statute regulating expression usually involves imponderables and contingencies that themselves
may inhibit the full exercise of First Amendment freedoms. See, e. g., Smith v. California, 361 U.S.
147.[HN3] When the statutes also have an overbroad
sweep, as is here alleged, the hazard of loss or substantial
impairment of those precious rights may be critical. For
in such cases, the statutes lend themselves too readily to
denial of those rights. The assumption that [**1121]
defense of a criminal prosecution will generally assure
ample vindication of constitutional rights is unfounded in
such cases. See Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 379. For "the
threat of sanctions may deter . . . almost as potently as
the actual application of sanctions. . . ." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433. Because of the sensitive nature of
constitutionally protected expression, we have not required that all of those subject to overbroad regulations
risk prosecution to test their rights. For free expression - of transcendent value to all society, and not merely to
those exercising their rights -- might be the loser. Cf.
Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75. For example,
we have consistently allowed attacks on overly broad
statutes with no requirement that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be
regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow
specificity. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98;
NAACP v. Button, supra, at 432-433; cf. Aptheker v.
Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 515-517; United States
v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21-22. We have fashioned this
exception to the usual rules governing standing, see
United States v. Raines, supra, because of [*487] the ".
. . danger of tolerating, in the area of First Amendment
freedoms, the existence of a penal statute [***29] susceptible of sweeping and improper application." NAACP
v. Button, supra, at 433. If the rule were otherwise, the
contours of regulation would have to be hammered out
case by case -- and tested only by those hardy enough to
risk criminal prosecution to determine the proper scope
of regulation. Cf. Ex parte Young, supra, at 147-148. By
permitting determination of the invalidity of these statutes without regard to the permissibility of some regulation on the facts of particular cases, we have, in effect,
avoided making vindication of freedom of expression
await the outcome of protracted litigation. Moreover, we
have not thought that the improbability of successful
prosecution makes the case different. The chilling effect
upon the exercise of First Amendment rights may derive
from the fact of the prosecution, unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure. See NAACP v. Button,
supra, at 432-433; cf. Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 378379; Bush v. Orleans School Board, 194 F.Supp. 182,
185, affirmed sub nom. Tugwell v. Bush, 367 U.S. 907;
Gremillion v. United States, 368 U.S. 11.
Appellants' allegations and offers of proof outline
the chilling effect on free expression of prosecutions
initiated and threatened in this case. Early in October
1963 appellant Dombrowski and intervenors Smith and
Waltzer were arrested by Louisiana state and local police
and charged with violations of the two statutes. Their
offices were raided and their files and records seized. 4
Later in [**1122] October a state judge quashed the
[*488] arrest warrants as not based on probable cause,
and discharged the appellants. Subsequently, the court
granted a motion to suppress the seized evidence on the
ground that the raid was illegal. Louisiana officials continued, however, to threaten prosecution of the appellants, who thereupon filed this action in November.
Shortly after the three-judge court was convened, a grand
Page 10
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
jury was summoned in the Parish of Orleans to hear evidence looking to indictments of the individual appellants.
On appellants' application Judge Wisdom issued a temporary restraining order against prosecutions pending
hearing and decision of the case in the District Court.
Following a hearing the District Court, over Judge Wisdom's dissent, dissolved the temporary restraining order
and, at the same time, handed down an order dismissing
the complaint. Thereafter the grand jury returned indictments under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law against the individual appellants. 5
4 The circumstances of the arrests are set forth
in Judge Wisdom's dissenting opinion:
"At gunpoint their homes and offices were
raided and ransacked by police officers and trustees from the House of Detention acting under the
direct supervision of the staff director and the
counsel for the State Un-American Activities
Committee. The home and office of the director
of Southern Conference Educational Fund were
also raided. Among the dangerous articles removed was Thoreau's Journal. A truckload of
files, membership lists, subscription lists to
SCEF's newspaper, correspondence, and records
were removed from SCEF's office, destroying its
capacity to function. At the time of the arrests,
Mr. Pfister, Chairman of the Committee, announced to the press that the raids and arrest resulted from 'racial agitation.'" 227 F.Supp., at
573.
5 Prosecution under these indictments is awaiting decision of this case.
[***LEdHR9] [9]These events, together with repeated
announcements by appellees that the appellant organization [***30] is a subversive or Communist-front organization, whose members must register or be prosecuted
under the Louisiana statutes, have, appellants allege,
frightened off potential members and contributors. Cf.
Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123. Seizures of documents and records have paralyzed operations and threatened exposure of the [*489] identity of
adherents to a locally unpopular cause. See NAACP v.
Alabama, 357 U.S. 449. Although the particular seizure
has been quashed in the state courts, the continuing
threat of prosecution portends further arrests and seizures, some of which may be upheld and all of which
will cause the organization inconvenience or worse. In
Freedman v. Maryland, ante, p. 51, we struck down a
motion picture censorship statute solely because the regulatory scheme did not sufficiently assure exhibitors a
prompt judicial resolution of First Amendment claims.
The interest in immediate resolution of such claims is
surely no less where criminal prosecutions are threatened
under statutes allegedly overbroad and seriously inhibiting the exercise of protected freedoms. Not only does
the complaint allege far more than an "injury other than
that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith," but appellants allege threats to
enforce statutory provisions other than those under which
indictments have been brought. Since there is no immediate prospect of a final state adjudication as to those
other sections -- if, indeed, there is any certainty that
prosecution of the pending indictments will resolve all
constitutional issues presented -- a series of state criminal prosecutions will not provide satisfactory resolution
of constitutional issues.
It follows that the District Court erred in holding
that the complaint fails to allege sufficient irreparable
injury to justify equitable relief.
[***LEdHR10A] [10A]
The District Court also erred in holding that it
should abstain pending authoritative interpretation of the
statutes in the state courts, which might hold that they
did not apply to SCEF, or that they were unconstitutional
as applied to SCEF. We hold [HN4] the abstention doctrine is inappropriate for cases such as the present one
where, unlike Douglas v. City of Jeannette, statutes are
justifiably [*490] attacked on their face as abridging
free expression, or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.
[**1123] [***LEdHR11] [11]First, appellants have
attacked the good faith of the appellees in enforcing the
statutes, claiming that they have invoked, and threaten to
continue to invoke, criminal process without any hope of
ultimate success, but only to discourage appellants' civil
rights activities. If these allegations state a claim under
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. ß 1983, as we believe
they do, see Beauregard v. Wingard, 230 F.Supp. 167
(D. C. S. D. Calif. 1964);Bargainer v. Michal, 233
F.Supp. 270 (D. C. N. D. Ohio 1964), the interpretation
ultimately put on the statutes by the state courts is irrelevant. For an interpretation rendering the statute inapplicable to SCEF would merely mean that appellants might
ultimately prevail in the state courts. It would not alter
the impropriety of appellees' invoking the statute in bad
faith to impose continuing harassment in order to discourage appellants' activities, as appellees allegedly are
doing and plan to continue to do.
[***LEdHR12] [12] [***LEdHR13A] [13A]
[***LEdHR14A] [14A]Second, appellants have challenged the statutes as overly broad and vague regulations
of expression.
[***31] We have already seen that
[HN5] where, as here, prosecutions are actually threat-
Page 11
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
ened, this challenge, if not clearly frivolous, will establish the threat of irreparable injury required by traditional
doctrines of equity. We believe that in this case the same
reasons preclude denial of equitable relief pending an
acceptable narrowing construction. In considering
whether injunctive relief should be granted, a federal
district court should consider a statute as of the time its
jurisdiction is invoked, rather than some hypothetical
future date. The area of proscribed conduct will be adequately defined and the deterrent effect of the statute
contained within constitutional limits only by authoritative constructions sufficiently illuminating the [*491]
contours of an otherwise vague prohibition. As we observed in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 378, this cannot be
satisfactorily done through a series of criminal prosecutions, dealing as they inevitably must with only a narrow
portion of the prohibition at any one time, and not contributing materially to articulation of the statutory standard. We believe that those affected by a statute are entitled to be free of the burdens of defending prosecutions,
however expeditious, aimed at hammering out the structure of the statute piecemeal, with no likelihood of obviating similar uncertainty for others. Here, no readily
apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, and appellants are entitled to an injunction. The State must, if it
is to invoke the statutes after injunctive relief has been
sought, assume the burden of obtaining a permissible
narrow construction in a noncriminal proceeding 6 before
it may seek modification of the injunction to permit future prosecutions. 7
6 Thirty-seven States, including Louisiana, have
adopted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
The Louisiana version, La. Civ. Proc. Code Ann.,
1960, Arts. 1871-1883, abolishes the former requirement that there be no other adequate remedy.
[***LEdHR14B] [14B]
7 Our cases indicate that [HN6] once an acceptable limiting construction is obtained, it may
be applied to conduct occurring prior to the construction, see Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S.
395; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569; Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, provided such
application affords fair warning to the defendants,
see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451; cf.
Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167, 179.
[***LEdHR15A] [15A] [***LEdHR16] [16]On
this view of the "vagueness" doctrine, it is readily apparent that abstention serves no legitimate purpose where a
statute regulating speech is properly attacked on its face,
and where, as here, the conduct charged in the indict-
ments is not within the reach of an acceptable limiting
construction readily [**1124] to be anticipated as the
result of a single criminal prosecution and is not the sort
of "hard-core" [*492] conduct that would obviously be
prohibited under any construction. In these circumstances, to abstain is to subject those affected to the uncertainties and vagaries of criminal prosecution, whereas the
reasons for the vagueness doctrine in the area of expression demand no less than freedom from prosecution prior
to a construction adequate to save the statute. In such
cases, abstention is at war with the purposes of the
vagueness doctrine, which demands appropriate federal
relief regardless of the prospects for expeditious determination of state criminal prosecutions. Although we
hold today
[***32] that appellants' allegations of
threats to prosecute, if upheld, dictate appropriate equitable relief without awaiting declaratory judgments in the
state courts, the settled rule of our cases is that [HN7]
district courts retain power to modify injunctions in light
of changed circumstances. System Federation v. Wright,
364 U.S. 642; Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U.S.
556; United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106. Our
view of the proper operation of the vagueness doctrine
does not preclude district courts from modifying injunctions to permit prosecutions in light of subsequent state
court interpretation clarifying the application of a statute
to particular conduct.
[***LEdHR10B] [10B] [***LEdHR13B] [13B]
[***LEdHR15B] [15B]
We conclude that on the allegations of the complaint, if true, abstention and the denial of injunctive
relief may well result in the denial of any effective safeguards against the loss of protected freedoms of expression, and cannot be justified.
II.
Each of the individual appellants was indicted for
violating ß 364 (7) 8 of the Subversive Activities and
Communist Control Law by failing to register as a member of [*493] a Communist-front organization. Smith
and Waltzer were indicted for failing to register as members "of a Communist front organization known as the
National Lawyers Guild, which said organization has
been cited by committees and sub-committees of the
United States Congress as a Communist front organization . . . ." Dombrowski and Smith were indicted for failing to register as members of "a Communist front organization known as the Southern Conference Educational
Fund, which said organization is essentially the same as
the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which said
Southern Conference for Human Welfare [has] . . . been
cited by the committees of the United States Congress as
a Communist front organization . . . ." Dombrowski and
Smith were also indicted for violating ß 364 (4), 9 by
Page 12
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
acting as Executive Director and Treasurer respectively
"of a subversive organization, to wit, the Southern Conference Educational Fund, said organization being essentially the same as the Southern Conference for Human
Welfare, which said organization has been cited by
committees of the United States Congress as a Communist front organization . . . ."
8 Section 364 (7) provides: "It shall be a felony
for any person knowingly and wilfully to . . . fail
to register as required in R. S. 14:360 or to make
any registration which contains any material false
statement or omission."
9 Section 364 (4) provides: "It shall be a felony
for any person knowingly and wilfully to . . . assist in the formation or participate in the management or to contribute to the support of any
subversive organization or foreign subversive organization knowing said organization to be a
subversive organization or a foreign subversive
organization . . . ."
[***LEdHR17] [17]The statutory definition of "a subversive organization" in ß 359 [**1125] (5) 10 incorporated in the offense created by [*494] ß 364 (4), is substantially [***33] identical to that of the Washington
statute which we considered in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra,
at 362, 363, n. 1. There the definition was used in a state
statute requiring state employees to take an oath as a
condition of employment. We held that the definition, as
well as the oath based thereon, denied due process because it was unduly vague, uncertain and broad. Where,
as here, protected freedoms of expression and association
are similarly involved, we see no controlling distinction
in the fact that the definition is used to provide a standard
of criminality rather than the contents of a test oath. This
overly broad statute also creates a "danger zone" within
which protected expression may be inhibited. Cf.
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526. [HN8] So long as
the statute remains available to the State the threat of
prosecutions of protected expression is a real and substantial one. Even the prospect of ultimate failure of
such prosecutions by no means dispels their chilling effect on protected expression. A Quantity of Copies of
Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205; Bantam Books, Inc. v.
Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58; Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367
U.S. 717; Speiser v. Randall, supra. [HN9] Since ß 364
(4) is so intimately bound up with a definition invalid
under the reasoning of Baggett v. Bullitt, we hold that it
is invalid for the same reasons.
10 Section 359 (5) provides: "'Subversive organization' means any organization which engages in
or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet,
advise, or teach activities intended to overthrow,
destroy, or to assist in the overthrow or destruction of the constitutional form of the government
of the state of Louisiana, or of any political subdivision thereof by revolution, force, violence or
other unlawful means, or any other organization
which seeks by unconstitutional or illegal means
to overthrow or destroy the government of the
state of Louisiana or any political subdivision
thereof and to establish in place thereof any form
of government not responsible to the people of
the state of Louisiana under the Constitution of
the state of Louisiana."
[***LEdHR18] [18]We also find the registration requirement of ß 364 (7) invalid. That section creates an
offense of failure to register as a member of a Communist-front organization, and, under ß 359 (3), 11 "the
fact that an organization has [*495] been officially cited
or identified by the Attorney General of the United
States, the Subversive Activities Control Board of the
United States or any committee or subcommittee of the
United States Congress as a . . . communist front organization . . . shall be considered presumptive evidence of
the factual status of any such organization." There is no
requirement that the organization be so cited only after
compliance with the procedural safeguards demanded by
Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, supra.12
11 Section 359 (3) provides: "'Communist Front
Organization' shall, for the purpose of this act include any communist action organization, communist front organization, communist infiltrated
organization or communist controlled organization and the fact that an organization has been officially cited or identified by the Attorney General of the United States, the Subversive Activities Control Board of the United States or any
committee or subcommittee of the United States
Congress as a communist organization, a communist action organization, a communist front
organization, a communist infiltrated organization or has been in any other way officially cited
or identified by any of these aforementioned authorities as a communist controlled organization,
shall be considered presumptive evidence of the
factual status of any such organization."
12 Although we hold the statute void on its face,
its application to the National Lawyers Guild is
instructive. In 1953, the Attorney General of the
United States proposed to designate the organization as subversive. His proposal was made under
revised regulations, promulgated under Executive
Order 10450 to comply with Anti-Fascist Committee, establishing a notice and hearing proce-
Page 13
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
dure prior to such designation of an organization.
18 Fed. Reg. 2619; see 1954 Annual Report of
the Attorney General, p. 14. The Guild brought
an action in the District Court for the District of
Columbia attacking the Executive Order and the
procedures. A summary judgment in favor of the
Attorney General because of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies was sustained on appeal
and this Court denied certiorari, National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 252,
225 F.2d 552, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 927. After a
Hearing Officer determined that certain interrogatories propounded to the Guild should be answered, the Guild brought another action in the
District Court, National Lawyers Guild v. Rogers,
Civil Action No. 1738-58, filed July 2, 1958. On
September 11, 1958, the Attorney General rescinded the proposal to designate the Guild. 1958
Annual Report of the Attorney General, p. 251.
On September 12, 1958, the complaint was dismissed as moot at the instance of the Attorney
General, who filed a motion reciting the rescission and stating that the Attorney General had
"concluded that the evidence that would now be
available at a hearing on the merits of the proposed designation fails to meet the strict standards of proof which guide the determination of
proceedings of this character." The present federal statutes provide that the Subversive Activities
Control Board may not designate an organization
as a Communist front without first according the
organization the procedural safeguards of notice
and hearing. Subversive Activities Control Act
of 1950, ß 13, 64 Stat. 998, 50 U. S. C. ß 792
(1958 ed.). See Communist Party v. SACB, 367
U.S. 1.
[*496] [***LEdHR19] [19]A [***34] [**1126]
designation resting on such safeguards is a minimum
requirement to insure the rationality of the presumptions
of the Louisiana statute and, in its absence, the presumptions cast an impermissible burden upon the appellants to
show that the organizations are not Communist fronts.
[HN10] "Where the transcendent value of speech is involved, due process certainly requires . . . that the State
bear the burden of persuasion to show that the appellants
engaged in criminal speech." Speiser v. Randall, supra,
at 526. It follows that ß 364 (7), [HN11] resting on the
invalid presumption, is unconstitutional on its face. 13
13 Although we read appellee Garrison's brief as
conceding that appellants' files and records were
seized in aid of the prosecutions under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law,
we find no concession that the seizure, as alleged
in appellants' offer of proof, was also under color
of the Communist Propaganda Control Law. Section 390.6 of that statute authorizes the seizure
and destruction on summary process of "all
communist propaganda discovered in the state of
Louisiana" in violation of the other provisions of
the Act, and ß 390.2 makes it a felony to disseminate such material. "Communist propaganda" is
defined in ß 390.1, which contains a presumption
identical to that which we have found to be invalid in ß 359 (3) of the Subversive Activities and
Communist Control Law. In light of the uncertain
state of the record, however, we believe that the
appellants' attacks upon the constitutionality, on
its face and as applied, of the Communist Propaganda Control Law should await determination
by the District Court after considering the sufficiency of threats to enforce the law.
[*497] III.
[***LEdHR20] [20]The precise terms and scope
of the injunctive relief to which appellants are entitled
and the identity of the appellees to be enjoined cannot, of
course, be determined until after the District Court conducts the hearing on remand. The record suffices, however, to permit this Court to hold that, without the benefit
of limiting construction, the statutory provisions on
which the indictments are founded are void on their face;
until an acceptable limiting construction is obtained, the
provisions cannot be applied to the activities of SCEF,
whatever they may be. The brief filed in this Court by
[**1127] appellee Garrison, District Attorney [***35]
of the Parish of Orleans, the official having immediate
responsibility for the indictments, concedes the facts
concerning the arrests of the individual appellants, their
discharge by the local judge, and the indictments of the
individual appellants by the grand jury. In view of our
decision on the merits, the District Court on remand need
decide only the relief to which appellants may be entitled
on the basis of their attacks on other sections of that statute and the Communist Propaganda Control Law, and on
their allegations that appellees threaten to enforce both
statutes solely to discourage appellants from continuing
their civil rights activities. On these issues, abstention
will be as inappropriate as on the issues we here decide.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and
the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. These shall include prompt framing of
a decree restraining prosecution of the pending indictments against the individual appellants, ordering immediate return of all papers and documents seized, and prohibiting further acts enforcing the sections of the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law here found
void [*498] on their face. In addition, appellants are
Page 14
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
entitled to expeditious determination, without abstention,
of the remaining issues raised in the complaint.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the decision of this case.
DISSENT BY: HARLAN
DISSENT
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE
CLARK joins, dissenting.
The basic holding in this case marks a significant
departure from a wise procedural principle designed to
spare our federal system from premature federal judicial
interference with state statutes or proceedings challenged
on federal constitutional grounds. This decision abolishes the doctrine of federal judicial abstention in all suits
attacking state criminal statutes for vagueness on FirstFourteenth Amendment grounds. As one who considers
that it is a prime responsibility of this Court to maintain
federal-state court relationships in good working order, I
cannot subscribe to a holding which displays such insensitivity to the legitimate demands of those relationships
under our federal system. I see no such incompatibility
between the abstention doctrine and the full vindication
of constitutionally protected rights as the Court finds to
exist in cases of this kind.
In practical effect the Court's decision means that a
State may no longer carry on prosecutions under statutes
challengeable for vagueness on "First Amendment"
grounds without the prior approval of the federal courts.
For if such a statute can be so questioned (and few, at
least colorably, cannot) then a state prosecution, if instituted [*499] after the commencement of a federal action, 1 must be halted until the prosecuting authorities
obtain in some other state proceeding a narrowing construction, which in turn would presumably [***36] be
subject to further monitoring by the federal courts before
the state prosecution would be allowed to proceed.
1 If the state criminal prosecution were instituted first, a federal court could not enjoin the state
action. 28 U. S. C. ß 2283 (1958 ed.).
For me such a paralyzing of state criminal processes
cannot be justified by any of the considerations which
the Court's opinion advances in its support. High as the
premium placed on First Amendment rights may be, I do
not think that the Federal Constitution prevents a State
from testing their availability through the medium of
criminal proceedings, subject [**1128] of course to this
Court's ultimate review.
Underlying the Court's major premise that criminal
enforcement of an overly broad statute affecting rights of
speech and association is in itself a deterrent to the free
exercise thereof seems to be the unarticulated assumption
that state courts will not be as prone as federal courts to
vindicate constitutional rights promptly and effectively.
Such an assumption should not be indulged in the absence of a showing that such is apt to be so in a given
case. No showing of that kind has been made. On the
contrary, the Louisiana courts in this very case have already refused to uphold the seizure of appellants' books.
Ante, pp. 487-488. We should not assume that those
courts would not be equally diligent in construing the
statutes here in question in accordance with the relevant
decisions of this Court. 2
2 Moreover, it is not unlikely that the Louisiana
courts would construe these statutes so as to obviate the problems of vagueness noted by the
Court in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, with regard to a similar Washington statute. Compare
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, and
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, ante, p.
485.
[*500] The Court suggests that "a substantial loss
or impairment of freedoms of expression will occur if
appellants must await the state court's disposition and
ultimate review in this Court of any adverse determination." Ante, p. 486. But the possibility of such an impairment is not obviated by traveling the federal route
approved here. Even in the federal courts the progress of
litigation is not always as swift as one would like to see
it. It is true, of course, that appellants would have to
show in the state case that the conduct charged falls outside the scope of a criminal statute construed within constitutional limits, whereas in this case they need not allege the particular conduct which they deem to be protected. But the argument that these state prosecutions do
not afford an appropriate vehicle for testing appellants'
claims respecting freedom of speech and association
hardly sits well with the Smith Act cases in which First
Amendment claims were at the very core of the federal
prosecutions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494;
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298; Scales v. United
States, 367 U.S. 203.
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, in which the Court
last Term struck down a Washington state statute virtually identical to this one, should not be dispositive of this
case. Baggett was decided in the context of what
amounted to an academic loyalty oath, applicable to college professors with respect to some of whom (those not
having tenure) there was at least grave doubt whether a
Page 15
380 U.S. 479, *; 85 S. Ct. 1116, **;
14 L. Ed. 2d 22, ***; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351
state remedy was available to review the constitutionality
of their dismissal by reason of refusal to take the required [***37] oath. I would not extend the doctrine of
that case to thwart the normal processes of state criminal
law enforcement. 3
3 In this case appellants are pursuing a consistent course of conduct, and the only question is
whether the Louisiana statutes apply to such conduct. Thus, this case comes within the "bulk of
abstention cases in this Court . . . [where] the unsettled issue of state law principally concerned
the applicability of the challenged statute to a certain person or a defined course of conduct, whose
resolution in a particular manner would eliminate
the constitutional issue and terminate the litigation." Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 376-377. The
present case is indistinguishable from Harrison v.
NAACP, 360 U.S. 167, and Albertson v. Millard,
345 U.S. 242, as explained in Baggett, supra, at
376, n. 13.
[*501] Had [**1129] this statute been a federal
enactment and had this Court been willing to pass upon
its validity in a declaratory judgment or injunction action, I can hardly believe that it would have stricken the
statute without first exposing it to the process of narrowing construction in an effort to save as much of it as possible. See, e. g., Dennis v. United States, supra, at 502.
Yet here the Court has not only made no effort to give
this state statute a narrowing construction, but has also
declined to give the Louisiana courts an opportunity to
do so with respect to the acts charged in the pending
prosecutions against these appellants. See Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345
U.S. 395. The statute thus pro tanto goes to its doom
without either state or federal court interpretation, and
despite the room which the statute clearly leaves for a
narrowing constitutional construction.
See Dennis,
Yates, and Scales, supra. This seems to me to be heavyhanded treatment of the first order.
What the Court decides suffers from a further infirmity. Interwoven with the vagueness doctrine is a question of standing. In a criminal prosecution a defendant
could not avoid a constitutional application of this statute
to his own conduct simply by showing that if applied to
others whose conduct was protected it would be unconstitutional. 4 To follow that practice in a federal court
which [*502] is asked to enjoin a state criminal prosecution would, however, in effect require that the parties
try the criminal case in advance in the federal forum, see
Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U.S. 392; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342
U.S. 117, 123-124, a procedure certainly seriously disruptive of the orderly processes of the state proceedings.
The Court seems to recognize that persons whose conduct would be included under even the narrowest reading
of the statutes -- what might be called "hard-core" conduct -- could have been constitutionally prosecuted under
the statutes invalidated today, without being able to assert a vagueness defense. Ante, n. 7; pp. 491-492. Thus,
if persons were conspiring to stage a forcible coup d'etat
in a State, they could hardly claim in a criminal trial that
a statute such as this was vague as applied to them. For
all we know, appellants' conduct in fact would fall within
even the narrowest reading of the Louisiana Subversive
Activities and Communist Control Law, but since appellants were able to reach a federal court before the
[***38] State instituted criminal proceedings against
them, they are now immunized with a federal vaccination
from state prosecution. To make standing and criminality turn on which party wins the race to the forum of its
own choice is to repudiate the "considerations of federalism" (ante, p. 484) to which the Court pays lip service.
4 See Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 96104 (1960).
While I consider that abstention was called for, I
think the District Court erred in dismissing the action. It
should have retained jurisdiction for the purpose of affording appellants appropriate relief in the event that the
state prosecution did not go forward in a prompt and
bona fide manner. See Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S.
167.
REFERENCES
Annotation References:
Discretion of federal court in an action involving federal
question to remit relevant state issue to state courts in
which no action is pending. 94 L ed 879, 3 L ed 2d 1827,
8 ALR2d 1228.
Private rights and remedies to enforce right based on
civil rights statute. 171 ALR 920.
Indefiniteness of language as affecting validity of criminal legislation. 96 L ed 374, 97 L ed 203.
Illustrations as to when a statute defining criminal offense is subject to attack as vague, indefinite, or uncertain. 83 L ed 893.
Constitutionality of statutes or ordinances making one
fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another. 51
ALR 1139, 86 ALR 179, 162 ALR 495.
Page 16
Page 17
Copyright 2009 SHEPARD'S(R) - 2380 Citing references
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1116, 14 L. Ed. 2d 22, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351 (1965)
Restrictions: Unrestricted
FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS terms
Print Format: FULL
Citing Ref. Signal: Hidden
SHEPARD'S SUMMARY
Unrestricted Shepard's Summary
No subsequent appellate
history. Prior history
available.
Citing References:
Questioned Analyses: Questioned (2)
Cautionary Analyses: Criticized (2), Distinguished (135), Limited (1)
Positive Analyses:
Followed (45)
Neutral Analyses:
Concurring Opinion (17), Dissenting Op. (110), Explained (45)
Other Sources:
Law Reviews (403), Secondary Sources (1), Statutes (8), Treatises (25), Annotations (8),
Other Citations (1), Court Documents (276)
LexisNexis Headnotes:
HN1 (349), HN2 (42), HN3 (759), HN4 (117), HN5 (178), HN6 (57), HN7 (203), HN8
(77), HN9 (41), HN10 (21), HN11 (14)
PRIOR HISTORY ( 1 citing reference )
1.
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 227 F. Supp. 556, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8828 (E.D. La. 1964)
Reversed by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1116, 14 L. Ed. 2d 22, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1351 (1965)
CITING DECISIONS ( 1658 citing decisions )
U.S. SUPREME COURT
2.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 173 L. Ed. 2d 738, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3297, 47 Comm. Reg.
(P & F) 933, 37 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1577 (U.S. 2009)
129 S. Ct. 1800 p.1837
173 L. Ed. 2d 738 p.779
3.
Cited by:
Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734, 125 S. Ct. 2108, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1042, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4347, 73 U.S.L.W.
4404, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 322, 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1737 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9
Page 18
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
544 U.S. 734 p.737
125 S. Ct. 2108 p.2111
161 L. Ed. 2d 1042 p.1048
4.
Cited by:
Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 123 S. Ct. 2191, 156 L. Ed. 2d 148, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4782, 71 U.S.L.W.
4441, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 347, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5136 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
123 S. Ct. 2191 p.2196
156 L. Ed. 2d 148 p.157
539 U.S. 113 p.119
5.
Cited by:
Los Angeles Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publ'g Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 120 S. Ct. 483, 145 L. Ed. 2d 451,
1999 U.S. LEXIS 8239, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 12, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9589, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R.
6471, 99 D.A.R. 12377, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1041 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
528 U.S. 32 p.38
120 S. Ct. 483 p.488
145 L. Ed. 2d 451 p.459
6.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 119 S. Ct. 936, 142 L. Ed. 2d 940, 1999
U.S. LEXIS 1514, 19 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A1-1, 67 U.S.L.W. 4133, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 101, 99 Cal.
Daily Op. Service 1388, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 886, 99 D.A.R. 1749 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3,
HN5
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
525 U.S. 471 p.493
119 S. Ct. 936 p.948
142 L. Ed. 2d 940 p.959
Cited by:
525 U.S. 471 p.488
119 S. Ct. 936 p.946
142 L. Ed. 2d 940 p.956
7.
Cited by:
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4037, 65 U.S.L.W.
4715, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 211, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4998, 97 D.A.R. 8133, 25 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1833 (1997)
521 U.S. 844 p.872
117 S. Ct. 2329 p.2345
138 L. Ed. 2d 874 p.898
8.
Cited by:
Denver Area Educ. Telcoms. Consortium v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 116 S. Ct. 2374, 135 L. Ed. 2d 888, 1996
U.S. LEXIS 4261, 64 U.S.L.W. 4706, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 139, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4792, 96
D.A.R. 7697, 3 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 545 (1996)
518 U.S. 727 p.751
116 S. Ct. 2374 p.2389
135 L. Ed. 2d 888 p.907
Page 19
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
9.
Cited by:
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2182, 58
U.S.L.W. 3677, 58 U.S.L.W. 4495 (1990)
495 U.S. 149 p.161
110 S. Ct. 1717 p.1726
109 L. Ed. 2d 135 p.149
10.
Cited by:
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 S. Ct. 1691, 109 L. Ed. 2d 98, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2036, 58 U.S.L.W.
4467 (1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6
495 U.S. 103 p.115
110 S. Ct. 1691 p.1699
109 L. Ed. 2d 98 p.113
11.
Cited by:
Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 109 S. Ct. 2633, 105 L. Ed. 2d 493, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3116, 57
U.S.L.W. 4787 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
491 U.S. 576 p.584
109 S. Ct. 2633 p.2638
105 L. Ed. 2d 493 p.502
12.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 107 S. Ct. 2502, 96 L. Ed. 2d 398, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2617, 55 U.S.L.W.
4823 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
482 U.S. 451 p.476
107 S. Ct. 2502 p.2517
96 L. Ed. 2d 398 p.421
Cited by:
482 U.S. 451 p.467
107 S. Ct. 2502 p.2513
96 L. Ed. 2d 398 p.416
13.
Cited by:
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 107 S. Ct. 1918, 95 L. Ed. 2d 439, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1934, 55 U.S.L.W.
4595, 14 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1001 (1987)
481 U.S. 497 p.502
107 S. Ct. 1918 p.1921
107 S. Ct. 1918 p.1922
95 L. Ed. 2d 439 p.446
14.
Cited by:
Secretary of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 104 S. Ct. 2839, 81 L. Ed. 2d 786, 1984
U.S. LEXIS 123, 52 U.S.L.W. 4875 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
467 U.S. 947 p.957
104 S. Ct. 2839 p.2848
81 L. Ed. 2d 786 p.796
Page 20
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
15.
Cited by:
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S. Ct. 2118, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 1984
U.S. LEXIS 83, 52 U.S.L.W. 4594 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
466 U.S. 789 p.799
104 S. Ct. 2118 p.2125
80 L. Ed. 2d 772 p.783
16.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 104 S. Ct. 1058, 79 L. Ed. 2d 299,
1984 U.S. LEXIS 28, 52 U.S.L.W. 4204, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2785 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
465 U.S. 271 p.311
104 S. Ct. 1058 p.1080
79 L. Ed. 2d 299 p.329
17.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 103 S. Ct. 1702, 75 L. Ed. 2d 736, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 154, 51
U.S.L.W. 4444 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
461 U.S. 171 p.187
103 S. Ct. 1702 p.1712
75 L. Ed. 2d 736 p.750
18.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 12, 50 U.S.L.W.
5077, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1809 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
Distinguished by:
458 U.S. 747 p.771
102 S. Ct. 3348 p.3362
73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 p.1132
Cited by:
458 U.S. 747 p.769
102 S. Ct. 3348 p.3361
73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 p.1130
19.
Cited by:
Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 102 S. Ct. 2629, 73 L. Ed. 2d 269, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 21, Fed. Sec. L.
Rep. (CCH) P98728 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
457 U.S. 624 p.654
102 S. Ct. 2629 p.2647
73 L. Ed. 2d 269 p.291
20.
Cited by:
Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d
116, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 2638, 50 U.S.L.W. 4712 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
457 U.S. 423 p.429
102 S. Ct. 2515 p.2520
73 L. Ed. 2d 116 p.123
Page 21
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
21.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800, 1981 U.S. LEXIS
50, 49 U.S.L.W. 4925, 16 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1057, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20600 (1981) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN6
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
453 U.S. 490 p.547
101 S. Ct. 2882 p.2912
69 L. Ed. 2d 800 p.839
Cited by:
453 U.S. 490 p.521
101 S. Ct. 2882 p.2899
69 L. Ed. 2d 800 p.823
22.
Cited by:
United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 100 S. Ct. 1185, 63 L. Ed. 2d 454, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 92, 5 Fed. R.
Evid. Serv. (CBC) 945 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
445 U.S. 360 p.370
100 S. Ct. 1185 p.1192
63 L. Ed. 2d 454 p.463
23.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 88, 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 1, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2575, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 822 (1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
441 U.S. 153 p.187
99 S. Ct. 1635 p.1654
60 L. Ed. 2d 115 p.141
24.
Cited by:
County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S. Ct. 2213, 60 L. Ed. 2d 777, 1979 U.S. LEXIS
124 (1979)
442 U.S. 140 p.155
99 S. Ct. 2213 p.2223
60 L. Ed. 2d 777 p.791
25.
Cited by:
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 98 S. Ct. 1912, 56 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 29
(1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
436 U.S. 447 p.462
98 S. Ct. 1912 p.1922
56 L. Ed. 2d 444 p.457
26.
Cited by:
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 23, 51 Ohio
Misc. 1, 5 Ohio Op. 3d 60, 2 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2097, 1977-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P61573 (1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
433 U.S. 350 p.380
97 S. Ct. 2691 p.2707
53 L. Ed. 2d 810 p.833
Page 22
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
27.
Cited by:
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S. Ct. 2440, 49 L. Ed. 2d 310, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3,
1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1151 (1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
427 U.S. 50 p.61
96 S. Ct. 2440 p.2448
49 L. Ed. 2d 310 p.321
28.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 86 (1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
428 U.S. 465 p.513
96 S. Ct. 3037 p.3061
49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 p.1098
29.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 96 S. Ct. 2868, 49 L. Ed. 2d 826, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 161 (1976)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
428 U.S. 106 p.123
96 S. Ct. 2868 p.2878
49 L. Ed. 2d 826 p.839
30.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S. Ct. 2831, 49 L. Ed. 2d 788, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 13
(1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
428 U.S. 52 p.101
96 S. Ct. 2831 p.2855
49 L. Ed. 2d 788 p.823
31.
Cited by:
Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 95 S. Ct. 2268, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 79, 1 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 1508 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
422 U.S. 205 p.216
95 S. Ct. 2268 p.2276
45 L. Ed. 2d 125 p.135
32.
Cited by:
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S. Ct. 2222, 44 L. Ed. 2d 600, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 73, 1 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1919 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
421 U.S. 809 p.816
95 S. Ct. 2222 p.2229
44 L. Ed. 2d 600 p.608
33.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 95 S. Ct. 1591, 44 L. Ed. 2d 121, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 59 (1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
421 U.S. 213 p.239
95 S. Ct. 1591 p.1605
Page 23
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
44 L. Ed. 2d 121 p.139
34.
Cited by:
Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 95 S. Ct. 1524, 44 L. Ed. 2d 15, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 57 (1975)
421 U.S. 117 p.130
95 S. Ct. 1524 p.1534
44 L. Ed. 2d 15 p.28
35.
Cited by:
Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 95 S. Ct. 1300, 43 L. Ed. 2d 591, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 51, 21 Fed.
R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1029 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
420 U.S. 738 p.756
95 S. Ct. 1300 p.1312
43 L. Ed. 2d 591 p.608
36.
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 HN1, HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
420 U.S. 592 p.614
95 S. Ct. 1200 p.1213
43 L. Ed. 2d 482 p.498
Cited by:
420 U.S. 592 p.602
95 S. Ct. 1200 p.1207
43 L. Ed. 2d 482 p.491
37.
Cited by:
Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 94 S. Ct. 2547, 41 L. Ed. 2d 439, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 81 (1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
417 U.S. 733 p.758
417 U.S. 733 p.759
94 S. Ct. 2547 p.2562
94 S. Ct. 2547 p.2563
41 L. Ed. 2d 439 p.459
41 L. Ed. 2d 439 p.460
38.
Cited by:
Poe v. Gerstein, 417 U.S. 281, 94 S. Ct. 2247, 41 L. Ed. 2d 70, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 67 (1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
417 U.S. 281 p.282
94 S. Ct. 2247 p.2248
41 L. Ed. 2d 70 p.71
39.
Cited by:
Karlan v. Cincinnati, 416 U.S. 924, 94 S. Ct. 1922, 40 L. Ed. 2d 280, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 518 (1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
Page 24
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
40.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 94 S. Ct. 2191, 40 L. Ed. 2d 566, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 144, 86 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2215, 74 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10030 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
416 U.S. 802 p.835
416 U.S. 802 p.837
94 S. Ct. 2191 p.2210
94 S. Ct. 2191 p.2211
40 L. Ed. 2d 566 p.592
40 L. Ed. 2d 566 p.593
Cited by:
416 U.S. 802 p.815
94 S. Ct. 2191 p.2200
40 L. Ed. 2d 566 p.580
41.
Cited by:
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S. Ct. 1209, 39 L. Ed. 2d 505, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 112 (1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5
415 U.S. 452 p.462
415 U.S. 452 p.463
94 S. Ct. 1209 p.1217
39 L. Ed. 2d 505 p.516
42.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Yale Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Com., 414 U.S. 914, 94 S. Ct. 211, 38 L. Ed. 2d 152,
1973 U.S. LEXIS 4113, 28 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 938 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
414 U.S. 914 p.917
94 S. Ct. 211 p.213
38 L. Ed. 2d 152 p.154
43.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 149, 1 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1441 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
413 U.S. 15 p.48
93 S. Ct. 2607 p.2627
37 L. Ed. 2d 419 p.445
44.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 34 (1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
413 U.S. 601 p.629
93 S. Ct. 2908 p.2924
37 L. Ed. 2d 830 p.850
Cited by:
413 U.S. 601 p.608
93 S. Ct. 2908 p.2914
93 S. Ct. 2908 p.2916
37 L. Ed. 2d 830 p.838
Page 25
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
37 L. Ed. 2d 830 p.840
37 L. Ed. 2d 830 p.841
45.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States Civil Service Comm'n v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S. Ct. 2880, 37 L.
Ed. 2d 796, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 146 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
413 U.S. 548 p.598
93 S. Ct. 2880 p.2906
37 L. Ed. 2d 796 p.827
46.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159 (1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
Distinguished by:
410 U.S. 113 p.166
93 S. Ct. 705 p.733
35 L. Ed. 2d 147 p.184
Cited by:
410 U.S. 113 p.127
93 S. Ct. 705 p.714
35 L. Ed. 2d 147 p.162
47.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 132, 1 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 2617, 24 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 2125 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
408 U.S. 665 p.741
92 S. Ct. 2646 p.2680
33 L. Ed. 2d 626 p.675
48.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
California v. La Rue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S. Ct. 390, 34 L. Ed. 2d 342, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 128 (1972)
409 U.S. 109 p.125
93 S. Ct. 390 p.400
34 L. Ed. 2d 342 p.356
49.
Cited by:
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 26 (1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
408 U.S. 104 p.109
92 S. Ct. 2294 p.2299
33 L. Ed. 2d 222 p.228
50.
Cited by:
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 104 (1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
407 U.S. 225 p.226
92 S. Ct. 2151 p.2154
32 L. Ed. 2d 705 p.708
Page 26
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
51.
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.556
92 S. Ct. 1113 p.1124
31 L. Ed. 2d 424 p.437
52.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103, 31 L. Ed. 2d 408, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 72 (1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
405 U.S. 518 p.533
92 S. Ct. 1103 p.1111
31 L. Ed. 2d 408 p.420
Cited by:
405 U.S. 518 p.521
92 S. Ct. 1103 p.1105
31 L. Ed. 2d 408 p.413
53.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 91 S. Ct. 1400, 28 L. Ed. 2d 822, 1971 U.S.
LEXIS 116, 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1130 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
402 U.S. 363 p.378
91 S. Ct. 1400 p.1409
28 L. Ed. 2d 822 p.835
Cited by:
402 U.S. 363 p.375
91 S. Ct. 1400 p.1408
28 L. Ed. 2d 822 p.833
54.
Cited by:
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 91 S. Ct. 1041, 28 L. Ed. 2d 434, 1971 U.S.
LEXIS 152, 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1026, 71-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P15979 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
401 U.S. 715 p.727
91 S. Ct. 1041 p.1048
28 L. Ed. 2d 434 p.443
55.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Younger v. Harris, 91 S. Ct. 760 (U.S. 1971)
91 S. Ct. 760 p.760
91 S. Ct. 760 p.761
56.
Cited by:
Younger v. Harris, 91 S. Ct. 756 (U.S. 1971)
Page 27
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
91 S. Ct. 756 p.757
57.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S. Ct. 1940, 29 L. Ed. 2d 438, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 27 (1971)
403 U.S. 217 p.270
91 S. Ct. 1940 p.1967
29 L. Ed. 2d 438 p.471
58.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 38, 58 Ohio Op. 2d
481 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9
402 U.S. 611 p.620
91 S. Ct. 1686 p.1691
29 L. Ed. 2d 214 p.221
59.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 91 S. Ct. 1454, 28 L. Ed. 2d 711, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 107, 58 Ohio
Op. 2d 243 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6
402 U.S. 183 p.257
91 S. Ct. 1454 p.1492
28 L. Ed. 2d 711 p.755
28 L. Ed. 2d 711 p.756
60.
Cited by:
Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U.S. 216, 91 S. Ct. 777, 27 L. Ed. 2d 792, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 87 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
401 U.S. 216 p.220
91 S. Ct. 777 p.780
27 L. Ed. 2d 792 p.795
61.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 91 S. Ct. 769, 27 L. Ed. 2d 781, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 86 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
401 U.S. 200 p.211
91 S. Ct. 769 p.775
27 L. Ed. 2d 781 p.789
62.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 91 S. Ct. 720, 27 L. Ed. 2d
749, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 85 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
401 U.S. 154 p.195
91 S. Ct. 720 p.742
27 L. Ed. 2d 749 p.777
63.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S. Ct. 674, 27 L. Ed. 2d 701, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 137 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5
401 U.S. 82 p.97
Page 28
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
401 U.S. 82 p.117
91 S. Ct. 674 p.683
91 S. Ct. 674 p.693
91 S. Ct. 674 p.699
27 L. Ed. 2d 701 p.712
27 L. Ed. 2d 701 p.724
27 L. Ed. 2d 701 p.730
64.
Criticized by, Explained by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 136 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5, HN6, HN7
Criticized by:
401 U.S. 37 p.50
91 S. Ct. 746 p.753
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 p.679
Explained by:
401 U.S. 37 p.47
401 U.S. 37 p.48
91 S. Ct. 746 p.752
91 S. Ct. 746 p.753
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 p.677
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 p.678
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
401 U.S. 37 p.58
91 S. Ct. 746 p.756
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 p.683
Cited by:
401 U.S. 37 p.55
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 p.682
65.
Explained by:
Dexter v. Schrunk, 400 U.S. 1207, 91 S. Ct. 7, 27 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1970)
400 U.S. 1207 p.1207
91 S. Ct. 7 p.7
27 L. Ed. 2d 29 p.29
66.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Byrne v. Karalexis, 396 U.S. 976, 90 S. Ct. 469, 24 L. Ed. 2d 447, 24 L. Ed. 2d 486, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3127
(1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN7, HN8
396 U.S. 976 p.978
90 S. Ct. 469 p.471
24 L. Ed. 2d 486 p.487
67.
Cited by:
O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683, 23 L. Ed. 2d 291, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1436 (1969)
395 U.S. 258 p.266
89 S. Ct. 1683 p.1687
23 L. Ed. 2d 291 p.298
Page 29
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
68.
Cited by:
Bokulich v. Jury Com. of Greene County, 394 U.S. 97, 89 S. Ct. 767, 22 L. Ed. 2d 109, 1969 U.S. LEXIS
2375 (1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
394 U.S. 97 p.99
89 S. Ct. 767 p.768
22 L. Ed. 2d 109 p.111
69.
Cited by:
Gorun v. Fall, 393 U.S. 398, 89 S. Ct. 678, 21 L. Ed. 2d 628, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2783 (1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
393 U.S. 398 p.399
89 S. Ct. 678 p.679
21 L. Ed. 2d 628 p.629
70.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Zigmond v. Selective Service Local Board, 391 U.S. 930, 88 S. Ct. 1831, 20 L. Ed. 2d 851, 1968 U.S.
LEXIS 1561 (1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
391 U.S. 930 p.932
20 L. Ed. 2d 851 p.852
71.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Shiffman v. Selective Serv. Local Bd., 88 S. Ct. 1831 (U.S. 1968)
88 S. Ct. 1831 p.1833
72.
Cited by:
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1347 (1968)
392 U.S. 83 p.99
88 S. Ct. 1942 p.1952
20 L. Ed. 2d 947 p.961
73.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Shiffman v. Selective Service Local Board, 391 U.S. 930, 88 S. Ct. 1831, 20 L. Ed. 2d 849, 1968 U.S.
LEXIS 1560 (1968)
20 L. Ed. 2d 849 p.850
74.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Zwicker v. Boll, 391 U.S. 353, 88 S. Ct. 1666, 20 L. Ed. 2d 642, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1636 (1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4
391 U.S. 353 p.356
88 S. Ct. 1666 p.1669
88 S. Ct. 1666 p.1671
20 L. Ed. 2d 642 p.644
20 L. Ed. 2d 642 p.645
75.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 88 S. Ct. 1335, 20 L. Ed. 2d 182, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1879 (1968)
Page 30
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
390 U.S. 611 p.622
88 S. Ct. 1335 p.1341
20 L. Ed. 2d 182 p.191
Cited by:
390 U.S. 611 p.613
88 S. Ct. 1335 p.1337
20 L. Ed. 2d 182 p.186
20 L. Ed. 2d 182 p.189
76.
Cited by:
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S. Ct. 534, 17 L. Ed. 2d 456, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2991, 1 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1791 (1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
385 U.S. 374 p.401
87 S. Ct. 534 p.549
17 L. Ed. 2d 456 p.475
77.
Distinguished by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
W. E. B. DuBois Clubs v. Clark, 389 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 450, 19 L. Ed. 2d 546, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 66 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
Distinguished by:
389 U.S. 309 p.312
88 S. Ct. 450 p.452
19 L. Ed. 2d 546 p.549
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
389 U.S. 309 p.317
88 S. Ct. 450 p.454
19 L. Ed. 2d 546 p.552
78.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 88 S. Ct. 391, 19 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2755 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
88 S. Ct. 391 p.400
19 L. Ed. 2d 444 p.455
Cited by:
389 U.S. 241 p.252
389 U.S. 241 p.253
389 U.S. 241 p.254
88 S. Ct. 391 p.398
88 S. Ct. 391 p.399
19 L. Ed. 2d 444 p.452
19 L. Ed. 2d 444 p.454
79.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Jacobs v. New York, 388 U.S. 431, 87 S. Ct. 2098, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1294, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1088 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 31
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
388 U.S. 431 p.437
87 S. Ct. 2098 p.2102
18 L. Ed. 2d 1294 p.1299
80.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1210, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2837 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
388 U.S. 307 p.344
87 S. Ct. 1824 p.1845
18 L. Ed. 2d 1210 p.1234
81.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2964 (1967)
388 U.S. 41 p.92
87 S. Ct. 1873 p.1900
18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 p.1071
82.
Cited by:
Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 87 S. Ct. 1425, 18 L. Ed. 2d 577, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1479 (1967)
83.
Cited by:
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2454
(1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
385 U.S. 589 p.601
87 S. Ct. 675 p.682
17 L. Ed. 2d 629 p.639
84.
Cited by:
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1580, 1 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1334 (1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
384 U.S. 214 p.221
86 S. Ct. 1434 p.1438
16 L. Ed. 2d 484 p.489
85.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S. Ct. 942, 16 L. Ed. 2d 31, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2013, 1 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 1409 (1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
383 U.S. 463 p.483
16 L. Ed. 2d 31 p.41
16 L. Ed. 2d 31 p.45
Cited by:
383 U.S. 463 p.475
86 S. Ct. 942 p.950
86.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Ginzburg v. United States, 86 S. Ct. 969 (U.S. 1966)
86 S. Ct. 969 p.970
Page 32
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
87.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S. Ct. 1800, 16 L. Ed. 2d 944, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2811 (1966)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
384 U.S. 808 p.846
86 S. Ct. 1800 p.1822
16 L. Ed. 2d 944 p.967
Cited by:
384 U.S. 808 p.829
86 S. Ct. 1800 p.1813
16 L. Ed. 2d 944 p.957
88.
Cited by:
Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 86 S. Ct. 1407, 16 L. Ed. 2d 469, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1644 (1966)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
384 U.S. 195 p.200
86 S. Ct. 1407 p.1410
16 L. Ed. 2d 469 p.473
89.
Cited by:
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S. Ct. 719, 15 L. Ed. 2d 637, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2845 (1966)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
383 U.S. 131 p.144
86 S. Ct. 719 p.725
15 L. Ed. 2d 637 p.646
90.
Cited by:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 86 S. Ct. 211, 15 L. Ed. 2d 176, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 264 (1965)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
382 U.S. 87 p.99
86 S. Ct. 211 p.218
15 L. Ed. 2d 176 p.184
91.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Cameron v. Johnson, 381 U.S. 741, 85 S. Ct. 1751, 14 L. Ed. 2d 715, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 975 (1965)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
381 U.S. 741 p.747
381 U.S. 741 p.754
85 S. Ct. 1751 p.1755
85 S. Ct. 1751 p.1758
14 L. Ed. 2d 715 p.717
14 L. Ed. 2d 715 p.720
Cited by:
381 U.S. 741 p.741
85 S. Ct. 1751 p.1752
14 L. Ed. 2d 715 p.715
Page 33
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
92.
Cited by:
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2286
(1965) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
381 U.S. 301 p.308
85 S. Ct. 1493 p.1497
14 L. Ed. 2d 398 p.403
1ST CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
93.
Cited by:
Rhode Island Ass'n of Realtors v. Whitehouse, 199 F.3d 26, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32451 (1st Cir. R.I.
1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
199 F.3d 26 p.35
94.
Cited by:
Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6633 (1st Cir. N.H. 1996)
80 F.3d 633 p.641
95.
Cited by:
Playboy Enters. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 906 F.2d 25, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10047, 67 Rad. Reg. 2d (P &
F) 1445, Util. L. Rep. (CCH) P13665 (1st Cir. P.R. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
906 F.2d 25 p.31
96.
Cited by:
Kines v. Day, 754 F.2d 28, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28043 (1st Cir. Mass. 1985)
754 F.2d 28 p.31
97.
Cited by:
Rushia v. Ashburnham, 701 F.2d 7, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30026 (1st Cir. Mass. 1983) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
701 F.2d 7 p.9
98.
Followed by:
Mancuso v. Taft, 476 F.2d 187, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001 (1st Cir. R.I. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
476 F.2d 187 p.190
99.
Cited by:
Morris v. Affleck, 437 F.2d 82, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12498 (1st Cir. R.I. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
437 F.2d 82 p.83
100.
Cited by:
Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6991 (1st Cir. R.I. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
Page 34
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
432 F.2d 567 p.568
101.
Distinguished by:
Merced Rosa v. Herrero, 423 F.2d 591, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10136 (1st Cir. P.R. 1970)
423 F.2d 591 p.594
102.
Cited by:
Grayson v. Montgomery, 421 F.2d 1306, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10728 (1st Cir. Mass. 1970)
421 F.2d 1306 p.1309
103.
Cited by:
United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11517 (1st Cir. Mass. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
416 F.2d 165 p.169
104.
Cited by:
O'Toole v. Scafati, 386 F.2d 168, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325 (1st Cir. Mass. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
386 F.2d 168 p.170
105.
Cited by:
Benoit v. Gardner, 351 F.2d 846, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4134 (1st Cir. Mass. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7
351 F.2d 846 p.850
1ST CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
106.
Cited by:
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102548 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102548
107.
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 HN1
Followed by:
517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.563
Cited by:
517 F. Supp. 2d 557 p.562
108.
Followed by:
Rodriguez-Vives v. P.R., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40824 (D.P.R. June 19, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40824
109.
Cited by:
Page 35
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Olson v. Velez, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40862 (D.P.R. Sept. 26, 2005)
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40862
110.
Cited by:
Robles-Ortiz v. Toledo, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37903 (D.P.R. Sept. 2, 2005)
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37903
111.
Cited by:
Rivera-Schatz v. Rodriguez, 310 F. Supp. 2d 405, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5357 (D.P.R. 2004)
310 F. Supp. 2d 405 p.411
112.
Cited by:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 200, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24611 (D.P.R. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
236 F. Supp. 2d 200 p.206
113.
Cited by:
Mangual v. Agostini, 203 F. Supp. 2d 78, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7198, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1909
(D.P.R. 2002)
203 F. Supp. 2d 78 p.91
114.
Cited by:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. Bonsey, 107 F. Supp. 2d 47, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6863, 50 Env't Rep.
Cas. (BNA) 1724 (D. Me. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
107 F. Supp. 2d 47 p.51
115.
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 HN3
875 F. Supp. 891 p.906
116.
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
117.
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 HN1
118.
Cited by:
Atlantic Beach Casino, Inc. v. Morenzoni, 749 F. Supp. 38, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14258 (D.R.I. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN8
749 F. Supp. 38 p.42
119.
Cited by:
Page 36
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 65,
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11260 (D. Mass. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
745 F. Supp. 65 p.76
120.
Cited by:
Corporacion Insular de Seguros v. Garcia, 680 F. Supp. 476, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779 (D.P.R. 1988)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
680 F. Supp. 476 p.479
121.
Cited by:
ROBINSON v. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. UTILS. of MASSACHUSETTS, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24072 (D.
Mass. June 17, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
122.
Cited by:
Perkins v. Penagaricano Soler, 610 F. Supp. 94, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19861 (D.P.R. 1985) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
610 F. Supp. 94 p.98
123.
Cited by:
Pan American Computer Corp. v. Data General Corp., 562 F. Supp. 693, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18184
(D.P.R. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
562 F. Supp. 693 p.700
124.
Cited by:
RUSHIA v. TOWN OF ASHBURNHAM, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14828 (D. Mass. July 30, 1982)
125.
Cited by:
GILDAY v. BOONE, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14268 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
126.
Cited by:
Baird v. White, 476 F. Supp. 442, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9588 (D. Mass. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
476 F. Supp. 442 p.443
127.
Cited by:
United States v. Marcano Garcia, 456 F. Supp. 1354, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15822 (D.P.R. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
456 F. Supp. 1354 p.1357
128.
Cited by:
Partido Nuevo Progresista v. Hernandez Colon, 415 F. Supp. 475, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15907 (D.P.R.
1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
415 F. Supp. 475 p.482
129.
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 HN1
429 F. Supp. 555 p.558
Page 37
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
130.
Cited by:
Rodos v. Michaelson, 396 F. Supp. 768, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11971 (D.R.I. 1975)
396 F. Supp. 768 p.778
131.
Cited by:
Dempsey v. McQueeney, 387 F. Supp. 333, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14533 (D.R.I. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5
387 F. Supp. 333 p.339
387 F. Supp. 333 p.342
132.
Cited by:
Cabrera v. Bayamon, 370 F. Supp. 859, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12503 (D.P.R. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
370 F. Supp. 859 p.869
133.
Distinguished by:
Oquendo v. Ortiz, 372 F. Supp. 79, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11692 (D.P.R. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN9
372 F. Supp. 79 p.84
134.
Cited by:
Rivera v. Chapel, 366 F. Supp. 691, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11498 (D.P.R. 1973)
366 F. Supp. 691 p.697
135.
Cited by:
Lim v. Andrukiewicz, 360 F. Supp. 1077, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13255 (D.R.I. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN7
360 F. Supp. 1077 p.1084
360 F. Supp. 1077 p.1085
136.
Cited by:
National Prisoners Reform Asso. v. Sharkey, 347 F. Supp. 1234, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D.R.I.
1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
347 F. Supp. 1234 p.1237
137.
Cited by:
Marin v. University of Puerto Rico, 346 F. Supp. 470, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13615 (D.P.R. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
346 F. Supp. 470 p.478
138.
Cited by:
Martinez v. Puerto Rico, 343 F. Supp. 897, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15519 (D.P.R. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
343 F. Supp. 897 p.901
343 F. Supp. 897 p.903
Page 38
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
139.
Distinguished by:
New Hampshire Bankers Asso. v. Nelson, 336 F. Supp. 1330, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15485 (D.N.H. 1972)
336 F. Supp. 1330 p.1336
140.
Cited by:
Glenwal Development Corp. v. Schmidt, 336 F. Supp. 1079, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15707 (D.P.R. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
336 F. Supp. 1079 p.1083
141.
Explained by:
Vistamar, Inc. v. Vazquez, 337 F. Supp. 375, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10220 (D.P.R. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
337 F. Supp. 375 p.377
142.
Cited by:
Sierra Melendez v. Rivera Brenes, 331 F. Supp. 898, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11607 (D.P.R. 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
331 F. Supp. 898 p.902
143.
Cited by:
Rodriguez Rivera v. Maiz, 331 F. Supp. 713, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13746 (D.P.R. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
331 F. Supp. 713 p.716
144.
Explained by:
Consejo General Estudiantes Etc v. University of Puerto Rico, 325 F. Supp. 453, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14153 (D.P.R. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
325 F. Supp. 453 p.456
145.
Cited by:
McQueen v. Druker, 317 F. Supp. 1122, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9984 (D. Mass. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
317 F. Supp. 1122 p.1133
146.
Cited by:
P. B. I. C., Inc. v. Byrne, 313 F. Supp. 757, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11812 (D. Mass. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN4
313 F. Supp. 757 p.766
147.
Cited by:
Strasser v. Doorley, 309 F. Supp. 716, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13257 (D.R.I. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5
309 F. Supp. 716 p.722
Page 39
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
148.
Distinguished by:
Rosa v. Gil, 309 F. Supp. 1332, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13943 (D.P.R. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
309 F. Supp. 1332 p.1334
309 F. Supp. 1332 p.1335
149.
Cited by:
Le Clair v. O'Neil, 307 F. Supp. 621, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9488 (D. Mass. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
307 F. Supp. 621 p.625
150.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Karalexis v. Byrne, 306 F. Supp. 1363, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8886 (D. Mass. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN4, HN8
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
306 F. Supp. 1363 p.1369
306 F. Supp. 1363 p.1370
Cited by:
306 F. Supp. 1363 p.1367
151.
Cited by:
Hurley v. Hinckley, 304 F. Supp. 704, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9428 (D. Mass. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7
304 F. Supp. 704 p.709
304 F. Supp. 704 p.711
152.
Cited by:
Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F. Supp. 688, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8449 (D.R.I. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
300 F. Supp. 688 p.703
153.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12588 (D. Mass. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
Distinguished by:
300 F. Supp. 665 p.668
Cited by:
300 F. Supp. 665 p.666
300 F. Supp. 665 p.667
154.
Cited by:
Inmobiliaria Borinquen, Inc. v. Garcia Santiago, 295 F. Supp. 203, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12573 (D.P.R.
1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
295 F. Supp. 203 p.206
155.
Cited by:
Pales De Mendez v. Aponte, 294 F. Supp. 311, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9192 (D.P.R. 1969) LexisNexis
Page 40
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN1
294 F. Supp. 311 p.315
156.
Cited by:
Burhoe v. Byrne, 289 F. Supp. 408, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9031 (D. Mass. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
289 F. Supp. 408 p.411
157.
Cited by:
Costas Elena v. President of United States, 288 F. Supp. 388, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9425 (D.P.R. 1968)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
288 F. Supp. 388 p.390
158.
Cited by:
Burhoe v. Byrne, 285 F. Supp. 382, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9178 (D. Mass. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
285 F. Supp. 382 p.384
1ST CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
159.
Cited by:
In re Milone, 73 B.R. 452, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 691, 15 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1312, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH)
P71840, 16 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1502 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
73 B.R. 452 p.456
2ND CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
160.
Cited by:
United States v. Konstantakakos, 121 Fed. Appx. 902, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2250 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
121 Fed. Appx. 902 p.905
161.
Cited by:
Ret. Sys. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 386 F.3d 419, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21584, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) P93003 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
386 F.3d 419 p.427
162.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26529 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
354 F.3d 124 p.149
163.
Cited by:
Pathways, Inc. v. Dunne, 329 F.3d 108, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8690 (2d Cir. Conn. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
329 F.3d 108 p.114
Page 41
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
164.
Cited by:
Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29682, 192 A.L.R.
Fed. 615 (2d Cir. Vt. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
221 F.3d 376 p.385
165.
Cited by:
Vermont Right to Life Comm. v. Sorrell, 216 F.3d 264, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14049 (2d Cir. Vt. 2000)
216 F.3d 264 p.274
166.
Cited by:
Bad Frog Brewery v. New York State Liquor Auth., 134 F.3d 87, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 525 (2d Cir. N.Y.
1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
134 F.3d 87 p.94
167.
Cited by:
Greenwich Citizens Comm. v. Counties of Warren & Washington Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 F.3d 26, 1996 U.S.
App. LEXIS 2512 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
77 F.3d 26 p.31
168.
Cited by:
Lebron v. AMTRAK, 69 F.3d 650, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31016 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
69 F.3d 650 p.659
169.
Explained by:
Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 916 F.2d 58, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 17869, 19902 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69218, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1643 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
916 F.2d 58 p.61
170.
Cited by:
Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9176 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
851 F.2d 72 p.77
171.
Cited by:
In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litigation), 770 F.2d 328, 1985 U.S.
App. LEXIS 22605, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1156 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
770 F.2d 328 p.335
172.
Cited by:
Brache v. County of Westchester, 658 F.2d 47, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18406 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
658 F.2d 47 p.54
173.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Page 42
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
St. Martin's Press, Inc. v. Carey, 605 F.2d 41, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17701, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1968
(2d Cir. N.Y. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
605 F.2d 41 p.47
Cited by:
605 F.2d 41 p.43
174.
Cited by:
United States v. Herrera, 584 F.2d 1137, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9781 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1978)
584 F.2d 1137 p.1149
175.
Cited by:
F. X. Maltz, Ltd. v. Morgenthau, 556 F.2d 123, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13213 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
556 F.2d 123 p.125
176.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
DiLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7295 (2d Cir. Conn. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
541 F.2d 949 p.956
177.
Cited by:
United States v. Persky, 520 F.2d 283, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14128, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P95209 (2d
Cir. N.Y. 1975)
520 F.2d 283 p.288
178.
Cited by:
Perry v. St. Pierre, 518 F.2d 184, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14456 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
518 F.2d 184 p.186
179.
Cited by:
Anonymous v. Association of the Bar, 515 F.2d 427, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15326 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
515 F.2d 427 p.434
515 F.2d 427 p.435
180.
Distinguished by:
Gajon Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly, 508 F.2d 1317, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
508 F.2d 1317 p.1319
508 F.2d 1317 p.1321
181.
Cited by:
414 Theater Corp. v. Murphy, 499 F.2d 1155, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8568 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
Page 43
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
499 F.2d 1155 p.1160
499 F.2d 1155 p.1162
182.
Cited by:
Lecci v. Cahn, 493 F.2d 826, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9904 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
493 F.2d 826 p.829
183.
Distinguished 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 HN1, HN3
488 F.2d 1353 p.1360
488 F.2d 1353 p.1362
184.
Cited by:
Reilly v. Doyle, 483 F.2d 123, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8582 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
483 F.2d 123 p.127
185.
Cited by:
Boraas v. Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11422 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973)
476 F.2d 806 p.811
186.
Cited by:
Thoms v. Heffernan, 473 F.2d 478, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12267 (2d Cir. Conn. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
473 F.2d 478 p.482
187.
Cited by:
Canal Theatres, Inc. v. Murphy, 473 F.2d 4, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11978 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1973)
473 F.2d 4 p.6
188.
Distinguished by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Erdmann v. Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10108 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5
Distinguished by:
458 F.2d 1205 p.1208
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
458 F.2d 1205 p.1213
189.
Cited by:
Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6636 (2d Cir. Conn. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
452 F.2d 1121 p.1124
190.
Distinguished by:
Page 44
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Leslie v. Matzkin, 450 F.2d 310, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7329 (2d Cir. Conn. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
450 F.2d 310 p.312
191.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Cortright v. Resor, 447 F.2d 245, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8419 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
447 F.2d 245 p.258
192.
Cited by:
Hull v. Petrillo, 439 F.2d 1184, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11302 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
439 F.2d 1184 p.1186
193.
Distinguished by:
Adickes v. Leary, 436 F.2d 540, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12473 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1971)
436 F.2d 540 p.542
194.
Cited by:
Long Island Vietnam Moratorium Committee v. Cahn, 437 F.2d 344, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5797 (2d Cir.
N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
437 F.2d 344 p.347
195.
Cited by:
Overstock Book Co. v. Barry, 436 F.2d 1289, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5811 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
436 F.2d 1289 p.1292
196.
Cited by:
United States v. De Stafano, 429 F.2d 344, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8030 (2d Cir. Conn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
429 F.2d 344 p.347
197.
Cited by:
McLucas v. Palmer, 427 F.2d 239, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9106 (2d Cir. Conn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
427 F.2d 239 p.241
198.
Cited by:
SEC v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 422 F.2d 1371, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10914, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) P92576 (2d Cir. 1970)
422 F.2d 1371 p.1381
199.
Cited by:
Astro Cinema Corp. v. Mackell, 422 F.2d 293, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10577 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
Page 45
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
422 F.2d 293 p.297
200.
Cited by:
Engelman v. Cahn, 425 F.2d 954, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9695 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
425 F.2d 954 p.958
201.
Cited by:
Potwora v. Dillon, 386 F.2d 74, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4515 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN5, HN7
386 F.2d 74 p.76
386 F.2d 74 p.77
202.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States ex rel. Roberts v. La Vallee, 373 F.2d 49, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7505 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
373 F.2d 49 p.54
203.
Cited by:
Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board, 372 F.2d 817, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7604 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
372 F.2d 817 p.824
204.
Cited by:
Chestnut v. New York, 370 F.2d 1, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4153 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1966)
370 F.2d 1 p.6
205.
Cited by:
United States v. Jones, 365 F.2d 675, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5255 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
365 F.2d 675 p.677
206.
Cited by:
Studebaker Corp. v. Gittlin, 360 F.2d 692, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6603 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
360 F.2d 692 p.697
207.
Cited by:
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 345 F.2d 236, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5707 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1965)
345 F.2d 236 p.239
2ND CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
208.
Followed by:
Glatzer v. Barone, 614 F. Supp. 2d 450, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37099 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Page 46
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
614 F. Supp. 2d 450 p.460
209.
Cited by:
Wisoff v. City of Schenectady, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17604 (N.D.N.Y Mar. 9, 2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17604
210.
Cited by:
United States v. Hotaling, 599 F. Supp. 2d 306, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98373 (N.D.N.Y 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
599 F. Supp. 2d 306 p.315
211.
Distinguished by:
Am. Acad. of Religion v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93424 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93424
212.
Cited by:
McCulley v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 593 F. Supp. 2d 422, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33748
(N.D.N.Y 2006)
593 F. Supp. 2d 422 p.432
213.
Cited by:
Vives v. City of New York, 305 F. Supp. 2d 289, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21148, 32 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
1302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
305 F. Supp. 2d 289 p.299
214.
Cited by:
Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F. Supp. 2d 394, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
237 F. Supp. 2d 394 p.409
215.
Cited by:
Diamond "D" Constr. Corp. v. N.Y. DOL, 142 F. Supp. 2d 377, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14257 (W.D.N.Y.
2001)
142 F. Supp. 2d 377 p.399
216.
Cited by:
Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11696, Copy. L. Rep.
(CCH) P28122, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1873 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
111 F. Supp. 2d 294 p.337
217.
Distinguished by:
Lark v. Lacy, 43 F. Supp. 2d 449, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5611 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
43 F. Supp. 2d 449 p.477
Page 47
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
218.
Cited by:
American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Shiffrin, 46 F. Supp. 2d 143, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 6463 (D. Conn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
46 F. Supp. 2d 143 p.157
219.
Cited by:
Krukowski v. Swords, 15 F. Supp. 2d 188, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10618 (D. Conn. 1998) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7, HN10
15 F. Supp. 2d 188 p.202
220.
Cited by:
Schlagler v. Phillips, 985 F. Supp. 419, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21203 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
985 F. Supp. 419 p.421
221.
Cited by:
Sanger v. Reno, 966 F. Supp. 151, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7647 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
966 F. Supp. 151 p.163
222.
Cited by:
Shea ex rel. American Reporter v. Reno, 930 F. Supp. 916, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10720, 3 Comm. Reg. (P
& F) 1344 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
930 F. Supp. 916 p.939
223.
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 HN7
831 F. Supp. 1088 p.1089
224.
Cited by:
Cutler v. 65 Sec. Plan, 831 F. Supp. 1008, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9024, 17 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA)
1569 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)
831 F. Supp. 1008 p.1013
225.
Cited by:
Investors Capital Corp. v. Connecticut Nat'l Bank, 824 F. Supp. 309, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12120 (D.
Conn. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
824 F. Supp. 309 p.311
226.
Cited by:
Feerick v. Sudolnik, 816 F. Supp. 879, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1733 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
816 F. Supp. 879 p.884
Page 48
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
227.
Cited by:
Middleton v. New York State, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9751 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 1992)
228.
Distinguished by:
In re Petition of Smouha, 136 B.R. 921, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 546 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
136 B.R. 921 p.927
229.
Cited by:
Dae Woo Kim v. New York, 774 F. Supp. 164, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12768 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
774 F. Supp. 164 p.167
230.
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 HN7
134 F.R.D. 32 p.36
231.
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 HN7
120 B.R. 648 p.655
232.
Cited by:
New Alliance Party v. Dinkins, 743 F. Supp. 1055, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10381 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
743 F. Supp. 1055 p.1063
233.
Cited by:
Temple of The Lost Sheep, Inc. v. Abrams, 761 F. Supp. 237, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17380 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
761 F. Supp. 237 p.243
234.
Cited by:
Simmonds v. Deutsch, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3516 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
235.
Cited by:
Shelton v. McCarthy, 699 F. Supp. 412, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13278 (W.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
699 F. Supp. 412 p.415
236.
Cited by:
Blackwelder v. Safnauer, 689 F. Supp. 106, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5737 (N.D.N.Y 1988) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
689 F. Supp. 106 p.118
237.
Cited by:
Page 49
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Dorman v. Satti, 678 F. Supp. 375, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 956 (D. Conn. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
678 F. Supp. 375 p.380
238.
Cited by:
Brach's Meat Market, Inc. v. Abrams, 668 F. Supp. 275, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7839 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
668 F. Supp. 275 p.281
239.
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 HN1
613 F. Supp. 278 p.280
240.
Cited by:
Invisible Empire Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. West Haven, 600 F. Supp. 1427, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23440
(D. Conn. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5
600 F. Supp. 1427 p.1431
241.
Cited by:
Petrozza v. Freeport, 602 F. Supp. 137, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22352 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN10
602 F. Supp. 137 p.143
242.
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 HN5, HN7
593 F. Supp. 1257 p.1259
593 F. Supp. 1257 p.1261
243.
Cited by:
CARLIN COMMUNS., INC. v. SMITH, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16879 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1984) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
244.
Cited by:
Youth International Party v. McGuire, 572 F. Supp. 1159, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12999 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
572 F. Supp. 1159 p.1164
572 F. Supp. 1159 p.1165
245.
Cited by:
COFFIN v. CONNECTICUT BANK & TRUST CO., 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18532 (D. Conn. Mar. 15,
1983)
246.
Cited by:
United States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. 1306, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12944 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)
540 F. Supp. 1306 p.1308
247.
Cited by:
Page 50
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Time, Inc. v. Regan, 539 F. Supp. 1371, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12731 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
539 F. Supp. 1371 p.1391
248.
Cited by:
Commission on Independent Colleges & Universities v. New York Temporary State Com. on Regulation of
Lobbying, 534 F. Supp. 489, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9337 (N.D.N.Y 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
534 F. Supp. 489 p.493
534 F. Supp. 489 p.502
249.
Cited by:
BGW Associates, Inc. v. Valley Broadcasting Co., 532 F. Supp. 1115, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10929
(S.D.N.Y. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
532 F. Supp. 1115 p.1117
250.
Distinguished by:
Price v. Rust, 527 F. Supp. 569, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18087 (D. Conn. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
527 F. Supp. 569 p.576
527 F. Supp. 569 p.577
251.
Cited by:
Wool v. Hogan, 505 F. Supp. 928, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10343 (D. Vt. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
505 F. Supp. 928 p.934
252.
Cited by:
Angelilli v. Murphy, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9761 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
253.
Cited by:
United Transp. Union v. Long Island Rail Road & Metropolitan Transp. Asso., 509 F. Supp. 1300, 1980
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9122, 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3069 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
509 F. Supp. 1300 p.1306
254.
Cited by:
International Longshoremen's Asso. v. Waterfront Com. of New York Harbor, 495 F. Supp. 1101, 1980 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 9193 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
495 F. Supp. 1101 p.1111
255.
Cited by:
Reilly v. Leonard, 459 F. Supp. 291, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14777 (D. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
459 F. Supp. 291 p.300
459 F. Supp. 291 p.301
256.
Cited by:
New York Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Acito, 459 F. Supp. 75, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16466 (S.D.N.Y.
1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
459 F. Supp. 75 p.82
Page 51
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
257.
Cited by:
Browning Debenture Holders' Committee v. DASA Corp., 454 F. Supp. 88, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18763
(S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
454 F. Supp. 88 p.95
258.
Distinguished by:
Aristocrat Health Club, Inc. v. Chaucer, 451 F. Supp. 210, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17872 (D. Conn. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
451 F. Supp. 210 p.219
259.
Cited by:
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. McAvey, 450 F. Supp. 1265, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
18074 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
450 F. Supp. 1265 p.1269
260.
Cited by:
United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19724 (D. Conn. 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
446 F. Supp. 890 p.897
261.
Cited by:
Lake Havasu Estates, Inc. v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 441 F. Supp. 489, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13687, 3
Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1433 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
441 F. Supp. 489 p.492
262.
Cited by:
SOPHISTICATED HEALTH SPA, INC. v. BAUMGARTEN, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13936 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
19, 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
263.
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 HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5
433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1304
433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1305
433 F. Supp. 1297 p.1307
264.
Cited by:
Show-World Center, Inc. v. Walsh, 438 F. Supp. 642, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15227 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
438 F. Supp. 642 p.650
265.
Cited by:
IDEAL TOY CORP. v. KENNER PRODS. DIV. OF GEN. MILLS FUN GROUP, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13291 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
266.
Cited by:
Page 52
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
GIGANTE v. KEENAN, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
267.
Cited by:
Black v. Beame, 419 F. Supp. 599, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13443 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)
419 F. Supp. 599 p.605
268.
Cited by:
De Maria v. Jones, 416 F. Supp. 291, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15287 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
416 F. Supp. 291 p.297
269.
Cited by:
Gras v. Stevens, 415 F. Supp. 1148, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15224 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
415 F. Supp. 1148 p.1153
270.
Cited by:
Gramuglia v. Levi, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14153, 194 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 324 (N.D.N.Y 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
271.
Cited by:
Luongo v. Wenzel, 404 F. Supp. 874, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15088 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
404 F. Supp. 874 p.878
272.
Cited by:
Cobb v. Beame, 402 F. Supp. 19, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15947 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
402 F. Supp. 19 p.26
273.
Cited by:
Vanasco v. Schwartz, 401 F. Supp. 87, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11474 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
401 F. Supp. 87 p.96
274.
Cited by:
Population Services International v. Wilson, 398 F. Supp. 321, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11608 (S.D.N.Y.
1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
398 F. Supp. 321 p.339
275.
Cited by:
United States v. Chestnut, 394 F. Supp. 581, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12960 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
394 F. Supp. 581 p.589
276.
Cited by:
Monroe v. Board of Education, 65 F.R.D. 641, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14201, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
Page 53
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
(Callaghan) 499 (D. Conn. 1975)
65 F.R.D. 641 p.651
277.
Cited by:
Wright v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Asso., 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13344, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10018
(S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
278.
Cited by:
Wright v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Asso., 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11941, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10240
(S.D.N.Y. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
279.
Cited by:
Burchette v. Dumpson, 387 F. Supp. 812, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11598 (E.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
387 F. Supp. 812 p.819
280.
Cited by:
De Salvo v. Codd, 386 F. Supp. 1293, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11444 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
386 F. Supp. 1293 p.1297
281.
Cited by:
Meeropol v. Nizer, 381 F. Supp. 29, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7368 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4
381 F. Supp. 29 p.32
282.
Cited by:
Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Cox, 379 F. Supp. 299, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7201, 19 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
379 F. Supp. 299 p.307
283.
Explained by:
Cooper v. Meskill, 376 F. Supp. 731, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8240 (D. Conn. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
376 F. Supp. 731 p.733
284.
Cited by:
Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., 366 F. Supp. 92, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11062 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
366 F. Supp. 92 p.95
285.
Explained 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 HN3
364 F. Supp. 478 p.480
364 F. Supp. 478 p.481
Page 54
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
286.
Cited by:
Lecci v. Cahn, 360 F. Supp. 759, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13180 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
360 F. Supp. 759 p.762
287.
Cited by:
Horodner v. Cahn, 360 F. Supp. 602, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13157 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
360 F. Supp. 602 p.605
288.
Cited by:
Brown v. Murphy, 355 F. Supp. 416, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15171 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
355 F. Supp. 416 p.418
289.
Distinguished by:
Caramico v. Romney, 390 F. Supp. 210, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11271 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
390 F. Supp. 210 p.215
290.
Followed by:
1487 Amusement Corp. v. Redlich, 350 F. Supp. 822, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11268 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
350 F. Supp. 822 p.828
291.
Cited by:
Koppell v. Levine, 347 F. Supp. 456, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12373 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4
347 F. Supp. 456 p.461
347 F. Supp. 456 p.463
292.
Cited by:
Boyd v. United States, 345 F. Supp. 790, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13380 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
345 F. Supp. 790 p.792
293.
Cited by:
Bekoff v. Clinton, 344 F. Supp. 642, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13352 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
344 F. Supp. 642 p.646
294.
Cited by:
Mod Amusement Co. v. Murphy, 335 F. Supp. 1267, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15661 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
335 F. Supp. 1267 p.1268
Page 55
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
295.
Cited by:
Cherry v. Postmaster General, 332 F. Supp. 785, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11561 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)
332 F. Supp. 785 p.790
296.
Explained by:
Bowes v. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption, etc., 330 F. Supp. 262, 1971 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13292 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
330 F. Supp. 262 p.265
297.
Distinguished by:
Miller v. Rockefeller, 327 F. Supp. 542, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14295 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
327 F. Supp. 542 p.549
298.
Cited by:
Cortright v. Resor, 325 F. Supp. 797, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14081 (E.D.N.Y. 1971)
325 F. Supp. 797 p.823
299.
Cited by:
Palermo v. Rockefeller, 323 F. Supp. 478, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15037 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)
323 F. Supp. 478 p.486
300.
Cited by:
Respress v. Ferrara, 321 F. Supp. 675, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15063 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
321 F. Supp. 675 p.680
301.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Vaughn, 333 F. Supp. 703, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9779 (D. Conn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
333 F. Supp. 703 p.705
302.
Cited by:
Mullarkey v. Borglum, 323 F. Supp. 1218, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11061 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
323 F. Supp. 1218 p.1221
323 F. Supp. 1218 p.1223
323 F. Supp. 1218 p.1227
303.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Long Island Vietnam Moratorium Committee v. Cahn, 322 F. Supp. 559, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11259
(E.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
322 F. Supp. 559 p.566
Cited by:
322 F. Supp. 559 p.561
Page 56
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
304.
Distinguished by:
Andrews v. Dillon, 319 F. Supp. 724, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9425 (W.D.N.Y. 1970)
319 F. Supp. 724 p.728
305.
Cited by:
Entertainment Systems, Inc. v. Sedita, 319 F. Supp. 686, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9503 (W.D.N.Y. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
319 F. Supp. 686 p.689
306.
Cited by:
United States v. Articles of ''Obscene'' Merchandise, 315 F. Supp. 191, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11427
(S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
315 F. Supp. 191 p.196
315 F. Supp. 191 p.197
307.
Cited by:
Konigsberg v. Time, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 848, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11788 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
312 F. Supp. 848 p.852
308.
Cited by:
Dale v. Hahn, 311 F. Supp. 1293, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12344 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
311 F. Supp. 1293 p.1301
309.
Cited by:
Bongiovanni v. Hogan, 309 F. Supp. 1364, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12895 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
309 F. Supp. 1364 p.1367
310.
Distinguished by:
McLucas v. Palmer, 309 F. Supp. 1353, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13270 (D. Conn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
309 F. Supp. 1353 p.1358
311.
Distinguished by:
Jodbor Cinema, Ltd. v. Sedita, 309 F. Supp. 868, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13094 (W.D.N.Y. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
309 F. Supp. 868 p.874
312.
Distinguished by:
Ahmed v. Rockefeller, 308 F. Supp. 935, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13340 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
308 F. Supp. 935 p.937
Page 57
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
313.
Cited by:
O'Sullivan v. Mundt, 308 F. Supp. 1090, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8929 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
308 F. Supp. 1090 p.1093
314.
Cited by:
Astro Cinema Corp. v. Mackell, 305 F. Supp. 863, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10084 (E.D.N.Y. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
305 F. Supp. 863 p.866
315.
Cited by:
Overstock Book Co. v. Barry, 305 F. Supp. 842, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10081 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
305 F. Supp. 842 p.851
316.
Cited by:
Raphael v. Hogan, 305 F. Supp. 749, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10068 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
305 F. Supp. 749 p.759
317.
Cited by:
Milky Way Productions, Inc. v. Leary, 305 F. Supp. 288, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10859 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
305 F. Supp. 288 p.292
318.
Distinguished by:
United States v. Green, 305 F. Supp. 125, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10023 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN8
305 F. Supp. 125 p.128
305 F. Supp. 125 p.130
319.
Cited by:
Sheridan v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, 303 F. Supp. 999, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9341, 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA)
2227, 60 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10247 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
303 F. Supp. 999 p.1006
320.
Cited by:
Rothstein v. Wyman, 303 F. Supp. 339, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13413 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
303 F. Supp. 339 p.350
321.
Cited by:
United States ex rel. Shakur v. Commissioner of Corrections, 303 F. Supp. 299, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
10292 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN7
303 F. Supp. 299 p.302
Page 58
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
322.
Cited by:
Bishop v. Golden, 302 F. Supp. 502, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9867 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN9
302 F. Supp. 502 p.504
302 F. Supp. 502 p.507
323.
Cited by:
Rage Books, Inc. v. Leary, 301 F. Supp. 546, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9956 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
301 F. Supp. 546 p.551
324.
Distinguished by:
Cole v. Trustees of Columbia University, 300 F. Supp. 1026, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12593 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
300 F. Supp. 1026 p.1030
325.
Cited by:
Gadsden v. Silberglitt, 299 F. Supp. 1236, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8613 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
299 F. Supp. 1236 p.1238
326.
Cited by:
Hosey v. Club Van Cortlandt, 299 F. Supp. 501, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8555 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN3
299 F. Supp. 501 p.503
299 F. Supp. 501 p.506
299 F. Supp. 501 p.507
327.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 299 F. Supp. 117, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13336 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
299 F. Supp. 117 p.137
299 F. Supp. 117 p.142
Cited by:
299 F. Supp. 117 p.122
328.
Cited by:
208 Cinema, Inc. v. Vergari, 298 F. Supp. 1175, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9038 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
298 F. Supp. 1175 p.1178
298 F. Supp. 1175 p.1180
298 F. Supp. 1175 p.1181
329.
Distinguished by:
Richardson v. Dudley, 295 F. Supp. 181, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10522 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
295 F. Supp. 181 p.185
Page 59
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
330.
Cited by:
East Village Other, Inc. v. Koota, 305 F. Supp. 1159, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9652 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
305 F. Supp. 1159 p.1161
305 F. Supp. 1159 p.1163
331.
Cited by:
Smalls v. Ives, 296 F. Supp. 448, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9673 (D. Conn. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
296 F. Supp. 448 p.450
332.
Cited by:
Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 291 F. Supp. 772, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9293 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
291 F. Supp. 772 p.776
333.
Cited by:
Bee See Books, Inc. v. Leary, 291 F. Supp. 622, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9284 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4
291 F. Supp. 622 p.624
291 F. Supp. 622 p.628
334.
Cited by:
Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12460 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
290 F. Supp. 244 p.247
335.
Cited by:
Faulkner v. Clifford, 289 F. Supp. 895, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
289 F. Supp. 895 p.901
336.
Cited by:
Seidel v. Cahn, 288 F. Supp. 990, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9463 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
288 F. Supp. 990 p.992
337.
Cited by:
Samuels v. Mackell, 288 F. Supp. 348, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9421 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN3, HN6, HN8
288 F. Supp. 348 p.352
288 F. Supp. 348 p.353
288 F. Supp. 348 p.354
338.
Cited by:
Page 60
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Grossner v. Trustees of Columbia University, 287 F. Supp. 535, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11720 (S.D.N.Y.
1968)
287 F. Supp. 535 p.549
339.
Distinguished by:
Dymtryshyn v. Esperdy, 285 F. Supp. 507, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8388 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
285 F. Supp. 507 p.510
340.
Cited by:
Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 284 F. Supp. 749, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7786 (D. Conn.
1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
284 F. Supp. 749 p.753
341.
Cited by:
Albaum v. Carey, 283 F. Supp. 3, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12823, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2146, 62 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P52264 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
283 F. Supp. 3 p.10
342.
Cited by:
United States ex rel. Zevin v. Cahn, 282 F. Supp. 275, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8198 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN2
282 F. Supp. 275 p.277
343.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 282 F. Supp. 70, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11882, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 379 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)
282 F. Supp. 70 p.86
344.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Johnson v. Lee, 281 F. Supp. 650, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11898 (D. Conn. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4, HN8
Distinguished by:
281 F. Supp. 650 p.657
Cited by:
281 F. Supp. 650 p.654
281 F. Supp. 650 p.656
345.
Cited by:
Greene v. New York, 281 F. Supp. 579, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7572 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
281 F. Supp. 579 p.581
346.
Cited by:
In re Weiss, 279 F. Supp. 857, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8065 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
279 F. Supp. 857 p.859
Page 61
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
347.
Cited by:
American Commuters Asso. v. Levitt, 279 F. Supp. 40, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10574 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
279 F. Supp. 40 p.49
348.
Explained by:
Barber v. Kinsella, 277 F. Supp. 72, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7450 (D. Conn. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
277 F. Supp. 72 p.75
277 F. Supp. 72 p.76
349.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Kabelka v. New York, 272 F. Supp. 998, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7129 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
Distinguished by:
272 F. Supp. 998 p.1000
Cited by:
272 F. Supp. 998 p.999
350.
Cited by:
Holland v. Hogan, 272 F. Supp. 855, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8920 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4
272 F. Supp. 855 p.868
351.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10855 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
271 F. Supp. 1 p.12
352.
Distinguished by:
Schumann v. New York, 270 F. Supp. 730, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8728 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
270 F. Supp. 730 p.732
353.
Cited by:
Thompson v. Shapiro, 270 F. Supp. 331, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11456 (D. Conn. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
270 F. Supp. 331 p.336
354.
Cited by:
Flast v. Gardner, 267 F. Supp. 351, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10605 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
267 F. Supp. 351 p.355
Page 62
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
355.
Distinguished by:
Duncombe v. New York, 267 F. Supp. 103, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8308 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
267 F. Supp. 103 p.106
356.
Cited by:
United States v. Elliott, 266 F. Supp. 318, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8389 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
266 F. Supp. 318 p.322
357.
Distinguished by:
Fenster v. Leary, 264 F. Supp. 153, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6646 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
264 F. Supp. 153 p.155
358.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Weiss v. Gardner, 263 F. Supp. 184, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6656 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
263 F. Supp. 184 p.189
359.
Distinguished by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Zwickler v. Koota, 261 F. Supp. 985, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9605 (E.D.N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN7, HN8, HN9
Distinguished by:
261 F. Supp. 985 p.988
261 F. Supp. 985 p.993
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
261 F. Supp. 985 p.995
360.
Cited by:
Stevens v. Frick, 259 F. Supp. 654, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7433 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
259 F. Supp. 654 p.657
361.
Cited by:
Wright v. McMann, 257 F. Supp. 739, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6822 (N.D.N.Y 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
257 F. Supp. 739 p.746
362.
Cited by:
United States v. Di Salvo, 251 F. Supp. 740, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7111, 62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2842, 53
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11300 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
251 F. Supp. 740 p.746
363.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Turner v. La Belle, 251 F. Supp. 443, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7872 (D. Conn. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 63
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
HN2, HN3, HN4
Distinguished by:
251 F. Supp. 443 p.447
Cited by:
251 F. Supp. 443 p.446
3RD CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
364.
Cited by:
Getson v. N.J., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25777 (3d Cir. N.J. Nov. 23, 2009)
365.
Distinguished by:
Friends & Residents of St. Thomas Twp., Inc. v. St. Thomas Dev., Inc., 176 Fed. Appx. 219, 2006 U.S. App.
LEXIS 8743 (3d Cir. Pa. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN9
176 Fed. Appx. 219 p.224
366.
Followed by:
Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7203, 2006 A.M.C. 722, 2006-1
Trade Cas. (CCH) P75172 (3d Cir. Pa. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
442 F.3d 177 p.183
367.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Voicenet Communs., Inc. v. Pappert, 126 Fed. Appx. 55, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3969 (3d Cir. Pa. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN7
Distinguished by:
126 Fed. Appx. 55 p.59
Cited by:
126 Fed. Appx. 55 p.57
368.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Conchatta, Inc. v. Evanko, 83 Fed. Appx. 437, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25135 (3d Cir. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
83 Fed. Appx. 437 p.446
369.
Cited by:
ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4152, 28 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 858 (3d Cir. Pa.
2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
322 F.3d 240 p.266
370.
Cited by:
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 282 F.3d 220, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2906 (3d Cir. Pa. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
282 F.3d 220 p.233
371.
Distinguished by:
Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1650, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2682 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989)
Page 64
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
868 F.2d 69 p.73
372.
Cited by:
Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Educ., 662 F.2d 1008, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16582 (3d Cir. N.J. 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
662 F.2d 1008 p.1022
373.
Cited by:
Mallick v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 644 F.2d 228, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19923,
31 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 208, 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738, 90 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12621 (3d Cir. Pa.
1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
644 F.2d 228 p.235
374.
Cited by:
Garden State Bar Asso. v. Middlesex County Ethics Committee, 643 F.2d 119, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS
19893 (3d Cir. N.J. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
643 F.2d 119 p.122
375.
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 HN2, HN5, HN7
637 F.2d 181 p.186
376.
Cited by:
Aiello v. Wilmington, 623 F.2d 845, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17987 (3d Cir. Del. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
623 F.2d 845 p.852
377.
Cited by:
Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health, Education &
Welfare, 619 F.2d 252, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (3d Cir. Pa. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
619 F.2d 252 p.264
378.
Cited by:
Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 576 F.2d 495, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11711, 3 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 2259 (3d Cir. Pa. 1978)
576 F.2d 495 p.507
379.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Johnson v. Kelly, 583 F.2d 1242, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8715 (3d Cir. Pa. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
583 F.2d 1242 p.1253
380.
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
Page 65
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
HN1, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
500 F.2d 1188 p.1200
Cited by:
500 F.2d 1188 p.1196
381.
Cited by:
Levy v. Parker, 478 F.2d 772, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431 (3d Cir. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
478 F.2d 772 p.794
382.
Cited by:
Conover v. Montemuro, 477 F.2d 1073, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6182 (3d Cir. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
477 F.2d 1073 p.1097
383.
Cited by:
De La Motte v. United States, 462 F.2d 124, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9166 (3d Cir. N.J. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
462 F.2d 124 p.125
384.
Distinguished by:
Oldroyd v. Kugler, 461 F.2d 535, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9225, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 182 (3d
Cir. N.J. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN9
461 F.2d 535 p.538
461 F.2d 535 p.539
385.
Cited by:
United States ex rel. Birnbaum v. Dolan, 452 F.2d 1078, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6502 (3d Cir. N.J. 1971)
452 F.2d 1078 p.1079
386.
Distinguished by:
Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8653 (3d Cir. N.J. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
446 F.2d 1343 p.1348
446 F.2d 1343 p.1349
446 F.2d 1343 p.1350
387.
Cited by:
Neifeld v. Steinberg, 438 F.2d 423, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11748, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (CBC) 897, 17
A.L.R. Fed. 374 (3d Cir. Pa. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
438 F.2d 423 p.432
388.
Cited by:
Majuri v. United States, 431 F.2d 469, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7673 (3d Cir. N.J. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5
Page 66
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
431 F.2d 469 p.473
389.
Cited by:
National Land & Inv. Co. v. Specter, 428 F.2d 91, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8485 (3d Cir. Pa. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN8
428 F.2d 91 p.95
428 F.2d 91 p.100
390.
Cited by:
De Vita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10382 (3d Cir. N.J. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
422 F.2d 1172 p.1176
391.
Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 418 F.2d 82, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10198 (3d Cir. Pa. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
418 F.2d 82 p.86
392.
Cited by:
Moskowitz v. Kindt, 394 F.2d 648, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6969 (3d Cir. Pa. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
394 F.2d 648 p.650
393.
Cited by:
Vigliano v. Thevos, 390 F.2d 55, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8219 (3d Cir. N.J. 1968)
390 F.2d 55 p.56
390 F.2d 55 p.57
394.
Cited by:
Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4431 (3d Cir. N.J. 1967)
387 F.2d 150 p.153
395.
Distinguished by:
Stevens v. Frick, 372 F.2d 378, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7578 (3d Cir. Pa. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5
372 F.2d 378 p.381
396.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092 (3d Cir. N.J. 1966)
361 F.2d 581 p.594
397.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Chester v. Anderson, 347 F.2d 823, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5630 (3d Cir. Pa. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
347 F.2d 823 p.825
Page 67
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Cited by:
347 F.2d 823 p.825
3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
398.
Followed by:
Clegg v. Commonwealth, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32445 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2009)
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32445
399.
Distinguished by:
Gordon v. E. Goshen Twp., 592 F. Supp. 2d 828, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2416 (E.D. Pa. 2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9, HN11
592 F. Supp. 2d 828 p.848
400.
Followed by:
Getson v. New Jersey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62161 (D.N.J. July 31, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7,
HN11
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62161
401.
Cited by:
Pappas v. Twp. of Galloway, 565 F. Supp. 2d 581, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49085 (D.N.J. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
565 F. Supp. 2d 581 p.590
402.
Cited by:
Pennsy Supply Inc. v. Susquehanna River Basin Comm'n, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20,
2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844
403.
Cited by:
Pa. Family Inst. v. Black, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29735 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29735
404.
Cited by:
Dowling v. Twp. of Woodbridge, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38630 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38630
405.
Cited by:
Ctr. for Democracy & Tech. v. Pappert, 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18295 (E.D. Pa. 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
337 F. Supp. 2d 606 p.648
406.
Cited by:
Page 68
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Voicenet Communs., Inc. v. Pappert, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15283 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2004)
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15283
407.
Distinguished by:
Voicenet Communs., Inc. v. Pappert, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15156 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN8, HN11
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15156
408.
Cited by:
Diener v. Reed, 232 F. Supp. 2d 362, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22993 (M.D. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
232 F. Supp. 2d 362 p.376
409.
Cited by:
Am. Library Ass'n v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 401, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9537 (E.D. Pa. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
201 F. Supp. 2d 401 p.452
410.
Cited by:
Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg'l Bd. of Educ., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25388 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2001)
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25388
411.
Cited by:
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. SEPTA, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1160 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1160
412.
Followed by:
Rupp v. Communications Workers Local 13000, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 1997)
157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738 p.2742
413.
Cited by:
Rupp v. Communication Workers of Am., Local 13000, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15973, 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA)
2614, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
414.
Cited by:
Rupp v. Communications Workers, Local 13000, 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2614 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 1997)
156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2614 p.2618
415.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Virgin Islands, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22546 (D.V.I. Oct. 16, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
416.
Cited by:
Matthews v. Sutton, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13011, 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2637 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 1996)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2637 p.2639
Page 69
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
417.
Cited by:
Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio, 902 F. Supp. 492, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14319
(D.N.J. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
902 F. Supp. 492 p.515
902 F. Supp. 492 p.516
418.
Cited by:
Olmeda v. Schneider, 889 F. Supp. 228, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9027, 32 V.I. 369 (1995) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
889 F. Supp. 228 p.231
419.
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 HN1
876 F. Supp. 641 p.659
420.
Cited by:
McCormack v. Township of Clinton, 872 F. Supp. 1320, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14431 (D.N.J. 1994)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
872 F. Supp. 1320 p.1327
421.
Cited by:
In re Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9236, 1994-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70841 (E.D. Pa.
July 5, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
422.
Cited by:
Lysaght v. New Jersey, 837 F. Supp. 646, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16437, 74 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 396
(D.N.J. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
837 F. Supp. 646 p.654
423.
Cited by:
Acevedo v. Forcinito, 820 F. Supp. 886, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11807 (D.N.J. 1993) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
820 F. Supp. 886 p.889
424.
Cited by:
Hohe v. Casey, 803 F. Supp. 1012, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16609, 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2847 (M.D. Pa.
1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
803 F. Supp. 1012 p.1016
425.
Cited by:
Simcox v. Delaware County, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6456 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
426.
Cited by:
1st Westco Corp. v. School Dist. of Pennsylvania, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6470 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 1991)
Page 70
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
427.
Cited by:
Schrader v. Zimmerman, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10695 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
428.
Cited by:
Hewett v. Feingold, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5113 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
429.
Cited by:
Coder v. Thornburg, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5753 (M.D. Pa. June 30, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
430.
Cited by:
Comer v. Philadelphia County, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1775 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
431.
Cited by:
Fink v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 651 F. Supp. 1238, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 388 (M.D. Pa. 1987)
651 F. Supp. 1238 p.1243
432.
Cited by:
FONTROY v. OWENS, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19872 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
433.
Cited by:
FENTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20164 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 1986)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
434.
Distinguished by:
Smith v. Wood, 649 F. Supp. 901, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20305 (E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
649 F. Supp. 901 p.913
435.
Cited by:
Schuler v. Chambersburg, 641 F. Supp. 657, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21494 (M.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
641 F. Supp. 657 p.661
436.
Cited by:
SINWELL v. MIKLICH, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21675 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
437.
Cited by:
THOMAS v. CASTILLE, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22235 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
438.
Cited by:
FOY v. JACKSON, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27983 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
439.
Cited by:
Brown v. Pornography Com. of Lower Southampton Township, 620 F. Supp. 1199, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14746 (E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
Page 71
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
620 F. Supp. 1199 p.1208
440.
Cited by:
GELLOCK v. WALSH, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16313 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
441.
Cited by:
Shipley v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 619 F. Supp. 421, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16494 (D. Del. 1985)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
619 F. Supp. 421 p.433
442.
Cited by:
FAB III CONCRETE CORP. v. BANK OF AMERICA NATL. TRUST & SAV. ASSN., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
17046 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
443.
Cited by:
MORRISON v. PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLE BD. MBRS., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19439 (E.D. Pa. May 29, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
444.
Distinguished by:
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Lower Heidelberg Township, 608 F. Supp. 1002, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20416 (E.D.
Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
608 F. Supp. 1002 p.1006
445.
Cited by:
Wichert v. Walter, 606 F. Supp. 1516, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20522 (D.N.J. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
606 F. Supp. 1516 p.1520
446.
Cited by:
In re Asbestos School Litigation, 107 F.R.D. 215, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21313, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1316 (E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
107 F.R.D. 215 p.221
447.
Cited by:
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Read, 597 F. Supp. 1431,
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22212 (D.N.J. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
597 F. Supp. 1431 p.1442
448.
Cited by:
Democratic Party of United States v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 578 F. Supp. 797,
1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, 15 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1716 (E.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
578 F. Supp. 797 p.814
449.
Cited by:
Mitman v. Glascott, 557 F. Supp. 429, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19143 (E.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
557 F. Supp. 429 p.431
Page 72
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
450.
Cited by:
Gutstein v. McDermott, 554 F. Supp. 966, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20204, 1983-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P65396
(M.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
554 F. Supp. 966 p.971
451.
Cited by:
PRISONERS' LEGAL ASSN., INC. v. FAUVER, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18315 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 1982)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
452.
Cited by:
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Danzinger, 536 F. Supp. 317,
1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11761, 3 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1552, 96
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P14146 (D.N.J. 1982)
536 F. Supp. 317 p.334
453.
Cited by:
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Danzinger, 536 F. Supp. 317,
1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363, 3 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1552, 96 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P14146 (D.N.J.
1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
454.
Cited by:
Bromhall v. Rorvik, 478 F. Supp. 361, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9432, 5 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1919, 203
U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 774 (E.D. Pa. 1979)
478 F. Supp. 361 p.368
455.
Cited by:
Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 463 F. Supp. 1220, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14940 (W.D. Pa. 1979)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
463 F. Supp. 1220 p.1229
456.
Cited by:
Hayes v. Wilmington, 451 F. Supp. 696, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17508 (D. Del. 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
451 F. Supp. 696 p.714
457.
Cited by:
Raitport v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 451 F. Supp. 522, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18448 (E.D. Pa. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
451 F. Supp. 522 p.530
458.
Cited by:
Aiello v. Wilmington, 426 F. Supp. 1272, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11633 (D. Del. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
426 F. Supp. 1272 p.1293
459.
Cited by:
Page 73
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Le Grande v. Redman, 423 F. Supp. 524, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12016 (D. Del. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
423 F. Supp. 524 p.528
460.
Cited by:
Matherly v. Lamb, 414 F. Supp. 364, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15024 (E.D. Pa. 1976)
414 F. Supp. 364 p.368
461.
Cited by:
Doe v. Zimmerman, 405 F. Supp. 534, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15017 (M.D. Pa. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
405 F. Supp. 534 p.540
462.
Cited by:
Planned Parenthood Asso. v. Fitzpatrick, 401 F. Supp. 554, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16336 (E.D. Pa. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
401 F. Supp. 554 p.582
463.
Cited by:
Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. Cryan, 393 F. Supp. 34, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13188 (D.N.J. 1975)
393 F. Supp. 34 p.45
464.
Cited by:
Ammond v. McGahn, 390 F. Supp. 655, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13514 (D.N.J. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
390 F. Supp. 655 p.662
465.
Distinguished by:
Bykofsky v. Middletown, 389 F. Supp. 836, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13804 (M.D. Pa. 1975)
389 F. Supp. 836 p.847
466.
Cited by:
Classic Distributors, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 387 F. Supp. 829, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6229 (M.D. Pa. 1974)
387 F. Supp. 829 p.839
467.
Cited by:
Siegel v. Salisbury, 379 F. Supp. 317, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 (W.D. Pa. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
379 F. Supp. 317 p.322
468.
Cited by:
Kimmey v. H. A. Berkheimer, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 49, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8464 (E.D. Pa. 1974)
376 F. Supp. 49 p.49
469.
Cited by:
Page 74
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Salvati v. Dale, 364 F. Supp. 691, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11612 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
364 F. Supp. 691 p.711
470.
Cited by:
Milligan v. Braszo, 361 F. Supp. 353, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13135 (W.D. Pa. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
361 F. Supp. 353 p.355
471.
Cited by:
Partnow v. Moran, 359 F. Supp. 519, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462 (D. Del. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
359 F. Supp. 519 p.522
472.
Cited by:
Oldroyd v. Kugler, 352 F. Supp. 27, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10593 (D.N.J. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
352 F. Supp. 27 p.29
473.
Cited by:
Portner v. Franck, 349 F. Supp. 656, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11634 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
349 F. Supp. 656 p.658
349 F. Supp. 656 p.659
474.
Cited by:
Roy v. Jones, 349 F. Supp. 315, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13205 (W.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
349 F. Supp. 315 p.324
349 F. Supp. 315 p.326
475.
Cited by:
Independent Tape Merchant's Asso. v. Creamer, 346 F. Supp. 456, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12642 (M.D. Pa.
1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
346 F. Supp. 456 p.461
476.
Distinguished by:
Iacona v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 600, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13814 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
343 F. Supp. 600 p.604
477.
Cited by:
YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F. Supp. 1048, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14888 (D.N.J. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
342 F. Supp. 1048 p.1061
Page 75
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
478.
Distinguished by, Explained by:
Burak v. Pennsylvania, 339 F. Supp. 534, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15002 (E.D. Pa. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Distinguished by:
339 F. Supp. 534 p.536
339 F. Supp. 534 p.537
Explained by:
339 F. Supp. 534 p.536
479.
Cited by:
Ryan v. Specter, 332 F. Supp. 26, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11872 (E.D. Pa. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
332 F. Supp. 26 p.28
480.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher, 329 F. Supp. 1196, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12389 (E.D. Pa.
1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
329 F. Supp. 1196 p.1223
Cited by:
329 F. Supp. 1196 p.1200
481.
Distinguished by:
Abramovich v. Bionaz, 326 F. Supp. 142, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13540, 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2835, 66 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P11987 (W.D. Pa. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
326 F. Supp. 142 p.144
482.
Explained by:
Lawrence v. Lordi, 324 F. Supp. 1092, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14190 (D.N.J. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
324 F. Supp. 1092 p.1093
483.
Cited by:
Ascheim v. Quinlan, 324 F. Supp. 789, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14125 (W.D. Pa. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
324 F. Supp. 789 p.795
484.
Distinguished by:
Oldroyd v. Kugler, 327 F. Supp. 176, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9141 (D.N.J. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN8
327 F. Supp. 176 p.178
485.
Distinguished by:
Conley v. Dauer, 321 F. Supp. 723, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9685 (W.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5
321 F. Supp. 723 p.730
Page 76
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
486.
Cited by:
Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com., 319 F. Supp. 407, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9583, 11 Av. Cas. (CCH) P17838 (E.D. Pa. 1970)
319 F. Supp. 407 p.411
487.
Distinguished by:
King-Smith v. Aaron, 317 F. Supp. 164, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9955 (W.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
317 F. Supp. 164 p.167
488.
Cited by:
Stanson v. Carroll, 316 F. Supp. 484, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10779 (E.D. Pa. 1970)
316 F. Supp. 484 p.486
489.
Cited by:
Motion Picture Asso. v. Specter, 315 F. Supp. 824, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10590 (E.D. Pa. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
315 F. Supp. 824 p.826
490.
Distinguished by:
Lisker v. Kelley, 315 F. Supp. 777, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10537 (M.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
315 F. Supp. 777 p.780
491.
Cited by:
Ascheim v. Quinlan, 314 F. Supp. 685, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11190 (W.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
314 F. Supp. 685 p.689
314 F. Supp. 685 p.690
492.
Distinguished by:
Pennsylvania v. Civill, 313 F. Supp. 1318, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11305 (W.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
313 F. Supp. 1318 p.1322
493.
Distinguished by:
Penney v. Municipal Court of Cherry Hill, 312 F. Supp. 938, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11857 (D.N.J. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
312 F. Supp. 938 p.940
494.
Distinguished by:
Pennsylvania v. Powers, 311 F. Supp. 1219, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12280 (E.D. Pa. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN8
311 F. Supp. 1219 p.1221
Page 77
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
495.
Cited by:
Hodsdon v. Buckson, 310 F. Supp. 528, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12462 (D. Del. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
310 F. Supp. 528 p.536
496.
Cited by:
Leslie Tobin Imports, Inc, v. Rizzo, 305 F. Supp. 1135, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10114 (E.D. Pa. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
305 F. Supp. 1135 p.1139
497.
Cited by:
Phillips v. Folcroft, 305 F. Supp. 766, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10071 (E.D. Pa. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
305 F. Supp. 766 p.768
498.
Cited by:
National Land & Inv. Co. v. Specter, 304 F. Supp. 1004, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (E.D. Pa. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN10
304 F. Supp. 1004 p.1006
304 F. Supp. 1004 p.1009
499.
Cited by:
Gundlach v. Rauhauser, 304 F. Supp. 962, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10232 (M.D. Pa. 1969)
304 F. Supp. 962 p.964
500.
Cited by:
Conover v. Montemuro, 304 F. Supp. 259, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10168 (E.D. Pa. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN5
304 F. Supp. 259 p.264
501.
Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 300 F. Supp. 281, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8407 (E.D. Pa. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN6, HN7
300 F. Supp. 281 p.288
502.
Cited by:
Cambist Films, Inc. v. Duggan, 298 F. Supp. 1148, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9035 (W.D. Pa. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
298 F. Supp. 1148 p.1153
503.
Cited by:
Straut v. Calissi, 293 F. Supp. 1339, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8170 (D.N.J. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
293 F. Supp. 1339 p.1343
293 F. Supp. 1339 p.1346
Page 78
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
504.
Cited by:
Matzner v. Davenport, 288 F. Supp. 636, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9437 (D.N.J. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
288 F. Supp. 636 p.639
288 F. Supp. 636 p.640
505.
Cited by:
Matzner v. Brown, 288 F. Supp. 608, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (D.N.J. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
288 F. Supp. 608 p.610
288 F. Supp. 608 p.611
506.
Cited by:
Robertson Motor Freight, Inc. v. Brady Motorfrate, Inc., 287 F. Supp. 449, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10099,
1968 Fed. Carr. Cas. (CCH) P82040 (W.D. Pa. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
287 F. Supp. 449 p.452
507.
Cited by:
Heard v. Rizzo, 281 F. Supp. 720, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8316 (E.D. Pa. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN6, HN8
281 F. Supp. 720 p.728
281 F. Supp. 720 p.729
281 F. Supp. 720 p.736
508.
Cited by:
Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Holiday House, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 648, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12254, 157
U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 46 (W.D. Pa. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
279 F. Supp. 648 p.650
509.
Explained by:
Lane v. McDevitt, 255 F. Supp. 413, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6607 (E.D. Pa. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
255 F. Supp. 413 p.414
510.
Cited by:
Mayberry v. Weinrott, 255 F. Supp. 80, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6588 (E.D. Pa. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
255 F. Supp. 80 p.81
511.
Cited by:
Gaito v. Strauss, 249 F. Supp. 923, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6498 (W.D. Pa. 1966)
249 F. Supp. 923 p.930
4TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
512.
Cited by:
Page 79
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9426 (4th Cir. N.C. 2008)
525 F.3d 274 p.300
513.
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 HN7
364 F.3d 521 p.529
514.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Reyes v. City of Lynchburg, 300 F.3d 449, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15725 (4th Cir. Va. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
300 F.3d 449 p.460
Cited by:
300 F.3d 449 p.456
515.
Cited by:
United States v. Mento, 231 F.3d 912, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27869, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2580 (4th
Cir. Md. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
231 F.3d 912 p.917
516.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Gilliam v. Foster, 63 F.3d 287, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21033 (4th Cir. 1995)
63 F.3d 287 p.292
517.
Cited by:
Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc. v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 15182 (4th Cir. N.C. 1989)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
887 F.2d 49 p.52
518.
Cited by:
United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4066, 15 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1369, 25
Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 647 (4th Cir. Md. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
844 F.2d 1057 p.1075
519.
Cited by:
United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31250, 56 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5045, 85-1 U.S.
Tax Cas. (CCH) P9408 (4th Cir. N.C. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
762 F.2d 361 p.364
520.
Cited by:
Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16505, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2599 (4th Cir.
Va. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
594 F.2d 356 p.363
Page 80
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
521.
Cited by:
United States v. Glenn, 562 F.2d 324, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11389 (4th Cir. Va. 1977) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
562 F.2d 324 p.325
522.
Cited by:
Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11447 (4th Cir. S.C. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
528 F.2d 811 p.814
523.
Cited by:
Age of Majority Educational Corp. v. Preller, 512 F.2d 1241, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15818 (4th Cir. Md.
1975)
524.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Joseph v. Blair, 488 F.2d 403, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7729 (4th Cir. 1973)
488 F.2d 403 p.405
525.
Explained by, Cited by:
Lynch v. Snepp, 472 F.2d 769, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11990 (4th Cir. N.C. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
Explained by:
472 F.2d 769 p.775
Cited by:
472 F.2d 769 p.774
526.
Cited by:
Donohoe v. Duling, 465 F.2d 196, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8112 (4th Cir. Va. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
465 F.2d 196 p.202
527.
Distinguished by:
Manns v. Koontz, 451 F.2d 1344, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6850 (4th Cir. Va. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
451 F.2d 1344 p.1345
528.
Cited by:
Crawford v. Courtney, 451 F.2d 489, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6936 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1971)
451 F.2d 489 p.491
529.
Cited by:
Tyrone, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 410 F.2d 639, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12512 (4th Cir. Va. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN3
410 F.2d 639 p.642
530.
Cited by:
Page 81
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Broyhill v. Morris, 408 F.2d 820, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13170 (4th Cir. N.C. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN7
408 F.2d 820 p.822
531.
Followed by:
United Steelworkers of America v. Bagwell, 383 F.2d 492, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5130, 66 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2257, 56 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P51755 (4th Cir. N.C. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
383 F.2d 492 p.495
532.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Baines v. Danville, 357 F.2d 756, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7450 (4th Cir. Va. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN10
357 F.2d 756 p.777
357 F.2d 756 p.785
4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
533.
Cited by:
Gilbert v. N.C. State Bar, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92967 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN9
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92967
534.
Distinguished by:
Field v. McMaster, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88028 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88028
535.
Followed by:
Gray v. McLemore, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9985 (D.S.C. Feb. 2, 2009)
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9985
536.
Followed by:
Rock For Life - UMBC v. Hrabowski, 594 F. Supp. 2d 598, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6625 (D. Md. 2009)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
594 F. Supp. 2d 598 p.606
537.
Distinguished by:
Gray v. Lancaster County Sheriff's Dep't, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75934 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75934
538.
Cited by:
Hill v. Courter, 344 F. Supp. 2d 484, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23007 (E.D. Va. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
344 F. Supp. 2d 484 p.494
539.
Followed by, Cited by:
Colonial First Props., LLC v. Henrico County, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14869 (E.D.
Page 82
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Va. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN7
Followed by:
166 F. Supp. 2d 1070 p.1076
Cited by:
166 F. Supp. 2d 1070 p.1086
540.
Cited by:
Londono-Rivera v. Virginia, 155 F. Supp. 2d 551, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7753 (E.D. Va. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN11
155 F. Supp. 2d 551 p.560
541.
Cited by:
Elam v. Bolling, 53 F. Supp. 2d 854, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10081 (W.D. Va. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
53 F. Supp. 2d 854 p.857
542.
Cited by:
Mom N Pops, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 979 F. Supp. 372, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20748 (W.D.N.C. 1997)
979 F. Supp. 372 p.393
543.
Cited by:
Crabtree v. Buchanan, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14626 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
544.
Cited by:
Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, 903 F. Supp. 16, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16201 (W.D.N.C.
1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
903 F. Supp. 16 p.18
545.
Cited by:
Asquith v. City of Beaufort, 911 F. Supp. 974, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18985 (D.S.C. 1995) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
911 F. Supp. 974 p.984
546.
Cited by:
Anheuser-Busch v. Mayor of Baltimore City, 855 F. Supp. 811, 154 F.R.D. 639, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14075 (D. Md. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
855 F. Supp. 811 p.821
547.
Cited by:
Renn by & Through Renn v. Garrison, 845 F. Supp. 1127, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3080 (E.D.N.C. 1994)
845 F. Supp. 1127 p.1131
548.
Distinguished by:
Eckstein v. Cullen, 803 F. Supp. 1107, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16676 (E.D. Va. 1992) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
Page 83
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
803 F. Supp. 1107 p.1118
549.
Followed by:
Fitts v. Kolb, 779 F. Supp. 1502, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20365, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1033 (D.S.C.
1991)
779 F. Supp. 1502 p.1512
779 F. Supp. 1502 p.1513
550.
Cited by:
Mulberry Hills Dev. Corp. v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 1553, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12880, 22 Envtl. L.
Rep. 20254 (D. Md. 1991)
772 F. Supp. 1553 p.1560
551.
Cited by:
Phillips v. Virginia Bd. of Medicine, 749 F. Supp. 715, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14833 (E.D. Va. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
749 F. Supp. 715 p.730
552.
Cited by:
Northern Virginia Chapter, American Civil Liberties v. Alexandria, 747 F. Supp. 324, 1990 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 13273 (E.D. Va. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
747 F. Supp. 324 p.326
553.
Cited by:
Floyd v. Thornburg, 619 F. Supp. 756, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15257 (W.D.N.C. 1985)
619 F. Supp. 756 p.760
554.
Cited by:
Wall & Ochs, Inc. v. Hicks, 469 F. Supp. 873, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13171 (E.D.N.C. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
469 F. Supp. 873 p.877
555.
Cited by:
Thiess v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws, 387 F. Supp. 1038, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11410
(D. Md. 1974)
387 F. Supp. 1038 p.1043
556.
Distinguished by:
Keblaitis v. Several Unknown Agents in Criminal Investigation Div. etc., 385 F. Supp. 867, 1974 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9351 (E.D.N.C. 1974)
385 F. Supp. 867 p.870
557.
Cited by:
Walker v. Dillard, 363 F. Supp. 921, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12106 (W.D. Va. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN11
363 F. Supp. 921 p.925
Page 84
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
558.
Cited by:
Lovisi v. Slayton, 363 F. Supp. 620, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12086 (E.D. Va. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
363 F. Supp. 620 p.628
559.
Explained by:
Rakes v. Coleman, 359 F. Supp. 370, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13329 (E.D. Va. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
359 F. Supp. 370 p.375
560.
Cited by:
Modern Social Education, Inc. v. Preller, 353 F. Supp. 173, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15407 (D. Md. 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
353 F. Supp. 173 p.179
561.
Distinguished by:
Wood v. Moore, 350 F. Supp. 29, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11333 (W.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
350 F. Supp. 29 p.31
562.
Cited by:
Greenmount Sales, Inc. v. Davila, 344 F. Supp. 860, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12922 (E.D. Va. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
344 F. Supp. 860 p.865
563.
Cited by:
Fowler v. Alexander, 340 F. Supp. 168, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14553 (M.D.N.C. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
340 F. Supp. 168 p.173
564.
Distinguished by:
Turco v. Allen, 334 F. Supp. 209, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10692 (D. Md. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7, HN9
334 F. Supp. 209 p.214
334 F. Supp. 209 p.217
565.
Cited by:
Donohoe v. Duling, 330 F. Supp. 308, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11941 (E.D. Va. 1971)
330 F. Supp. 308 p.310
566.
Questioned by:
Woodruff v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 328 F. Supp. 1023, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12411 (S.D. W.
Va. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
328 F. Supp. 1023 p.1028
Page 85
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
567.
Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12786 (M.D.N.C. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7
Explained by:
328 F. Supp. 842 p.843
328 F. Supp. 842 p.844
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
328 F. Supp. 842 p.847
328 F. Supp. 842 p.849
568.
Distinguished by:
Dunkel v. Elkins, 325 F. Supp. 1235, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14167 (D. Md. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
325 F. Supp. 1235 p.1241
569.
Cited by:
Hartsville Theatres, Inc. v. Fox, 324 F. Supp. 258, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14496 (D.S.C. 1971)
324 F. Supp. 258 p.261
570.
Cited by:
Wheeler v. Adams Co., 322 F. Supp. 645, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14909 (D. Md. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
322 F. Supp. 645 p.653
571.
Cited by:
Parker v. Morgan, 322 F. Supp. 585, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14938 (W.D.N.C. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
322 F. Supp. 585 p.587
572.
Cited by:
Gregory v. Gaffney, 322 F. Supp. 238, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14982 (W.D.N.C. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
322 F. Supp. 238 p.239
573.
Cited by:
Bruns v. Pomerleau, 319 F. Supp. 58, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9814, 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P8031 (D.
Md. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
319 F. Supp. 58 p.67
574.
Cited by:
Sword v. Fox, 317 F. Supp. 1055, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9994 (W.D. Va. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
317 F. Supp. 1055 p.1062
575.
Cited by:
Page 86
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Levin v. Marshall, 317 F. Supp. 169, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10182 (D. Md. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
317 F. Supp. 169 p.171
576.
Cited by:
Adler v. Pomerleau, 313 F. Supp. 277, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11495 (D. Md. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
313 F. Supp. 277 p.287
577.
Cited by:
Cole v. Graybeal, 313 F. Supp. 48, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11620 (W.D. Va. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN2, HN3, HN7
313 F. Supp. 48 p.49
578.
Distinguished by:
Taylor v. Chesapeake, 312 F. Supp. 713, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12230 (E.D. Va. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
312 F. Supp. 713 p.717
579.
Distinguished by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Evans, 312 F. Supp. 614, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12546 (E.D. Va. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
312 F. Supp. 614 p.616
312 F. Supp. 614 p.617
312 F. Supp. 614 p.618
580.
Cited by:
Barnhart v. Mandel, 311 F. Supp. 814, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12807 (D. Md. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
311 F. Supp. 814 p.824
581.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Washington Free Community v. State's Attorney of Montgomery County, 310 F. Supp. 436, 1970 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12947 (D. Md. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
310 F. Supp. 436 p.445
Cited by:
310 F. Supp. 436 p.441
582.
Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Evans, 306 F. Supp. 1084, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8854 (E.D. Va. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
306 F. Supp. 1084 p.1085
583.
Cited by:
Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F. Supp. 58, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8760 (W.D.N.C. 1969) LexisNexis
Page 87
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN2
306 F. Supp. 58 p.60
584.
Cited by:
Drive in Theatres, Inc. v. Huskey, 305 F. Supp. 1232, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10125 (W.D.N.C. 1969)
305 F. Supp. 1232 p.1235
585.
Cited by:
Washington Free Community v. State's Attorney of Montgomery County, 300 F. Supp. 487, 1969 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8426 (D. Md. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
300 F. Supp. 487 p.489
300 F. Supp. 487 p.490
586.
Cited by:
Wheeler v. Goodman, 298 F. Supp. 935, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9014 (W.D.N.C. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
298 F. Supp. 935 p.941
587.
Cited by:
Atkins v. Charlotte, 296 F. Supp. 1068, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9581, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2732, 59 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P52038 (W.D.N.C. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
296 F. Supp. 1068 p.1074
588.
Cited by:
Maryland v. Brown, 295 F. Supp. 63, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10515 (D. Md. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
295 F. Supp. 63 p.75
589.
Distinguished by:
Tyrone, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 294 F. Supp. 1330, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9232 (E.D. Va. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
294 F. Supp. 1330 p.1332
590.
Explained by:
Whitehill v. Elkins, 287 F. Supp. 61, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11713 (D. Md. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN9
287 F. Supp. 61 p.64
591.
Cited by:
Smith v. Hill, 285 F. Supp. 556, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9198 (E.D.N.C. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
285 F. Supp. 556 p.562
592.
Cited by:
Chester v. Kinnamon, 276 F. Supp. 717, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8558 (D. Md. 1967)
276 F. Supp. 717 p.723
Page 88
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
593.
Cited by:
Collins v. Maryland, 264 F. Supp. 629, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9145 (D. Md. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7
264 F. Supp. 629 p.630
594.
Cited by:
Whitehill v. Elkins, 258 F. Supp. 589, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6739 (D. Md. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN9
258 F. Supp. 589 p.596
595.
Cited by:
Painter v. Peyton, 257 F. Supp. 913, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6830 (E.D. Va. 1966)
257 F. Supp. 913 p.917
596.
Cited by:
Creighton v. North Carolina, 257 F. Supp. 806, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6826 (E.D.N.C. 1966)
257 F. Supp. 806 p.811
597.
Cited by:
Davis v. Maryland, 248 F. Supp. 951, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6057 (D. Md. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
248 F. Supp. 951 p.952
5TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
598.
Cited by:
RTM Media, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 584 F.3d 220, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21611 (5th Cir. Tex. 2009)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21611
599.
Cited by:
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11729 (5th Cir. La. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
449 F.3d 655 p.660
600.
Cited by:
Newby v. Enron Corp, 302 F.3d 295, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16024, Blue Sky L. Rep. (CCH) P74280, 2
A.L.R. Fed. 2d 593 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
302 F.3d 295 p.301
601.
Cited by:
Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782 (5th Cir. La. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
244 F.3d 405 p.415
Page 89
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
602.
Cited by:
CIGNA Healthplan v. Louisiana ex rel. Ieyoub, 82 F.3d 642, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10018, 20 Employee
Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1276 (5th Cir. La. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
82 F.3d 642 p.644
603.
Cited by:
Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 990 F.2d 1489, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 12100, 25 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1442 (5th Cir. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
990 F.2d 1489 p.1499
604.
Cited by:
B & A Pipeline Co. v. Dorney, 904 F.2d 996, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11197, 112 Oil & Gas Rep. 103 (5th
Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
904 F.2d 996 p.1001
605.
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 HN1
894 F.2d 127 p.132
606.
Followed by:
Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3079 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
838 F.2d 1420 p.1424
607.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Hill v. Houston, 789 F.2d 1103, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25128 (5th Cir. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
789 F.2d 1103 p.1124
Cited by:
789 F.2d 1103 p.1107
608.
Cited by:
Texas State Teachers Asso. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 777 F.2d 1046, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS
25196, 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2533 (5th Cir. Tex. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
777 F.2d 1046 p.1055
609.
Cited by:
Hill v. Houston, 764 F.2d 1156, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21790, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30837 (5th Cir. Tex.
1985)
764 F.2d 1156 p.1160
610.
Cited by:
Hill v. Houston, 764 F.2d 1156, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30837 (5th Cir. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 90
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
611.
Cited by:
Bishop v. State Bar of Texas, 736 F.2d 292, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20494 (5th Cir. Tex. 1984) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
736 F.2d 292 p.293
612.
Cited by:
In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 659 F.2d 1332, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16488, 1981-2
Trade Cas. (CCH) P64340 (5th Cir. Tex. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
659 F.2d 1332 p.1334
613.
Cited by:
Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, 648 F.2d 1020, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12062 (5th Cir. Tex. 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
648 F.2d 1020 p.1034
614.
Cited by:
Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F.2d 943, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21016 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
636 F.2d 943 p.944
615.
Cited by:
Federal Election Com. v. Lance, 635 F.2d 1132, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20978 (5th Cir. Ga. 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
635 F.2d 1132 p.1140
616.
Cited by:
Penthouse International, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20758, 5 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 2531 (5th Cir. Ga. 1980)
610 F.2d 1353 p.1361
617.
Cited by:
Reeves v. McConn, 631 F.2d 377, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12002 (5th Cir. Tex. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
631 F.2d 377 p.383
618.
Cited by:
Aladdin's Castle, Inc. v. Mesquite, 630 F.2d 1029, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12219 (5th Cir. Tex. 1980)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
630 F.2d 1029 p.1038
619.
Cited by:
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12154 (5th
Cir. Ga. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
601 F.2d 809 p.821
620.
Cited by:
Page 91
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13767 (5th Cir. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
597 F.2d 513 p.518
621.
Cited by:
Henry v. First Nat'l Bank, 595 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14550 (5th Cir. Miss. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
595 F.2d 291 p.304
622.
Cited by:
Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15032 (5th Cir. Ga. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
593 F.2d 1375 p.1381
593 F.2d 1375 p.1387
623.
Cited by:
Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 578 F.2d 1122, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS
9355 (5th Cir. La. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
578 F.2d 1122 p.1126
624.
Cited by:
Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12266 (5th Cir. Miss. 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5
569 F.2d 219 p.231
625.
Cited by:
Morial v. Judiciary Com. of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5650 (5th Cir. La. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
565 F.2d 295 p.298
626.
Cited by:
Universal Amusement Co. v. Vance, 559 F.2d 1286, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11370 (5th Cir. Tex. 1977)
559 F.2d 1286 p.1295
627.
Cited by:
Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 544 F.2d 182, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 5801 (5th Cir. Tex. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
544 F.2d 182 p.187
628.
Cited by:
Wiegand v. Seaver, 504 F.2d 303, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6058 (5th Cir. Fla. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
504 F.2d 303 p.305
629.
Cited by:
Response of Carolina v. Leasco Response, Inc., 498 F.2d 314, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 1974-2 Trade
Page 92
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Cas. (CCH) P75182 (5th Cir. Fla. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
498 F.2d 314 p.317
630.
Cited by:
Jones v. Wade, 479 F.2d 1176, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9691 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN5
479 F.2d 1176 p.1181
631.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Duke v. Texas, 477 F.2d 244, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10364 (5th Cir. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN7
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
477 F.2d 244 p.254
Cited by:
477 F.2d 244 p.252
632.
Followed by:
Eames v. Pitcher, 468 F.2d 905, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6978 (5th Cir. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
468 F.2d 905 p.905
633.
Cited by:
Shaw v. Garrison, 467 F.2d 113, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8147 (5th Cir. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
467 F.2d 113 p.120
634.
Cited by:
Thevis v. Seibels, 464 F.2d 613, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8268 (5th Cir. Ala. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
464 F.2d 613 p.613
635.
Cited by:
Stewart v. Dameron, 460 F.2d 278, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9241 (5th Cir. La. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
460 F.2d 278 p.278
636.
Cited by:
Thomie v. Dennard, 459 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523 (5th Cir. Ga. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
459 F.2d 1037 p.1037
637.
Followed by, Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Becker v. Thompson, 459 F.2d 919, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9771 (5th Cir. Ga. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5
Followed by:
459 F.2d 919 p.923
Page 93
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Explained by:
459 F.2d 919 p.924
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
459 F.2d 919 p.924
Cited by:
459 F.2d 919 p.922
638.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Perkins v. Mississippi, 455 F.2d 7, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11823 (5th Cir. Miss. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
455 F.2d 7 p.33
455 F.2d 7 p.43
639.
Cited by:
Hill v. El Paso, 437 F.2d 352, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12527, 2 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1130 (5th Cir. Tex.
1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
437 F.2d 352 p.355
640.
Cited by:
Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8026 (5th Cir. Ga. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN7
448 F.2d 456 p.458
448 F.2d 456 p.459
448 F.2d 456 p.460
448 F.2d 456 p.462
641.
Cited by:
Le Flore v. Robinson, 446 F.2d 715, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9295 (5th Cir. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN5
446 F.2d 715 p.717
642.
Cited by:
Duncan v. Perez, 445 F.2d 557, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9605 (5th Cir. La. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
445 F.2d 557 p.560
643.
Cited by:
Livingston v. Garmire, 442 F.2d 1322, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10293 (5th Cir. Fla. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
442 F.2d 1322 p.1323
644.
Distinguished by:
Thevis v. Moore, 440 F.2d 1350, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10947 (5th Cir. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
440 F.2d 1350 p.1350
Page 94
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
645.
Cited by:
Buie v. Pigott, 439 F.2d 153, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11435 (5th Cir. Miss. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5, HN7
439 F.2d 153 p.153
646.
Cited by:
Livingston v. Garmire, 437 F.2d 1050, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12250 (5th Cir. Fla. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN7
437 F.2d 1050 p.1051
437 F.2d 1050 p.1054
437 F.2d 1050 p.1056
647.
Cited by:
Moreno v. Henckel, 431 F.2d 1299, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7238, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10308, 2 Fair
Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1009 (5th Cir. Tex. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
431 F.2d 1299 p.1309
648.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Le Flore v. Robinson, 434 F.2d 933, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449 (5th Cir. Ala. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN3, HN7, HN9, HN10
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
434 F.2d 933 p.953
Cited by:
434 F.2d 933 p.936
434 F.2d 933 p.937
434 F.2d 933 p.938
649.
Cited by:
De Bremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6648, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 835
(5th Cir. Tex. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
433 F.2d 733 p.735
650.
Cited by:
Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9387, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 158 (5th Cir. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
426 F.2d 858 p.865
651.
Cited by:
Hunter v. Allen, 422 F.2d 1158, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11138 (5th Cir. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
422 F.2d 1158 p.1163
652.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Brown v. Chastain, 416 F.2d 1012, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11225 (5th Cir. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Page 95
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
416 F.2d 1012 p.1023
653.
Cited by:
Sheridan v. Garrison, 415 F.2d 699, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11112, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1252
(5th Cir. La. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7
415 F.2d 699 p.701
415 F.2d 699 p.702
415 F.2d 699 p.703
415 F.2d 699 p.705
654.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Machesky v. Bizzell, 414 F.2d 283, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12076, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10028, 60
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9270 (5th Cir. Miss. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN3, HN4
Distinguished by:
414 F.2d 283 p.287
Cited by:
414 F.2d 283 p.290
655.
Distinguished by:
Dade County Classroom Teachers' Asso. v. Nathan, 413 F.2d 1005, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11600, 60 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P10223 (5th Cir. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
413 F.2d 1005 p.1006
656.
Cited by:
Dawkins v. Green, 412 F.2d 644, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12138, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1249 (5th
Cir. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
412 F.2d 644 p.646
657.
Cited by:
Smith v. Grady, 411 F.2d 181, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12377, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P10003, 60 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P9245 (5th Cir. Miss. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
411 F.2d 181 p.185
658.
Cited by:
King v. Adams, 410 F.2d 455, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12623 (5th Cir. Ga. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
410 F.2d 455 p.456
659.
Cited by:
James v. Headley, 410 F.2d 325, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12898 (5th Cir. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN7
410 F.2d 325 p.335
410 F.2d 325 p.336
660.
Cited by:
Wright v. Montgomery, 406 F.2d 867, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9193 (5th Cir. Ala. 1969) LexisNexis
Page 96
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN7
406 F.2d 867 p.869
406 F.2d 867 p.871
406 F.2d 867 p.876
406 F.2d 867 p.877
661.
Cited by:
Time, Inc. v. McLaney, 406 F.2d 565, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9464 (5th Cir. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
406 F.2d 565 p.566
662.
Cited by:
Kirkland v. Wallace, 403 F.2d 413, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5177 (5th Cir. Ala. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
403 F.2d 413 p.416
403 F.2d 413 p.417
663.
Cited by:
Clay v. United States, 397 F.2d 901, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7071 (5th Cir. Tex. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
397 F.2d 901 p.922
664.
Cited by:
Davis v. Francois, 395 F.2d 730, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6752 (5th Cir. La. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
395 F.2d 730 p.737
665.
Cited by:
Northside Bible Church v. Goodson, 387 F.2d 534, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4258 (5th Cir. Ala. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
387 F.2d 534 p.537
666.
Cited by:
United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4859 (5th Cir. Ala. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
385 F.2d 734 p.745
667.
Cited by:
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee v. Smith, 382 F.2d 9, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270 (5th Cir.
Ga. 1967)
382 F.2d 9 p.11
668.
Cited by:
Pfister v. Arceneaux, 376 F.2d 821, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4388, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 124 (5th
Cir. La. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
376 F.2d 821 p.821
Page 97
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
669.
Cited by:
Sunflower County Colored Baptist Asso. v. Trustees of Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist., 369 F.2d
795, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4183 (5th Cir. Miss. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
369 F.2d 795 p.798
670.
Cited by:
NAACP v. Thompson, 357 F.2d 831, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6953 (5th Cir. Miss. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
357 F.2d 831 p.838
671.
Cited by:
Hillegas v. Sams, 349 F.2d 859, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4639 (5th Cir. Miss. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN9
349 F.2d 859 p.862
672.
Cited by:
Cox v. Louisiana, 348 F.2d 750, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5064 (5th Cir. La. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN8
348 F.2d 750 p.751
5TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
673.
Cited by:
RTM Media, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 578 F. Supp. 2d 875, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75490 (S.D. Tex.
2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
578 F. Supp. 2d 875 p.886
674.
Cited by:
Bernegger v. Haney, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70740 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 18, 2008)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70740
675.
Cited by:
RTM Media, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 518 F. Supp. 2d 866, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71388 (S.D. Tex.
2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
518 F. Supp. 2d 866 p.871
676.
Cited by:
United States v. Valencia, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15264 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15264
677.
Cited by:
Newby v. Enron Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3949, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91706 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 15,
2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3949
Page 98
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
678.
Cited by:
Jordan v. Reis, 169 F. Supp. 2d 664, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16440, 87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 119
(S.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
169 F. Supp. 2d 664 p.668
679.
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
680.
Cited by:
Marinechance Navigation v. Galedo, 1997 A.M.C. 2670 (E.D. La. 1997)
1997 A.M.C. 2670 p.2675
681.
Cited by:
CIGNA Healthplan v. Louisiana ex rel. Ieyoub, 883 F. Supp. 94, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5423, 19 Employee
Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1431 (M.D. La. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
883 F. Supp. 94 p.98
682.
Cited by:
Cornett v. Longois, 871 F. Supp. 918, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18159 (E.D. Tex. 1994) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
871 F. Supp. 918 p.922
683.
Cited by:
Farmer v. Sherrod, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5526 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5,
HN7
684.
Cited by:
Jernigan v. Mississippi, 812 F. Supp. 688, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1896 (S.D. Miss. 1993) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
812 F. Supp. 688 p.692
685.
Cited by:
Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 780 F. Supp. 1467, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187, 1992 A.M.C. 989 (S.D.
Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
780 F. Supp. 1467 p.1486
686.
Cited by:
Dumas v. Dallas, 648 F. Supp. 1061, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20495 (N.D. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
648 F. Supp. 1061 p.1068
687.
Cited by:
Nash v. Texas, 632 F. Supp. 951, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29074, 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3140, 106 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P55748 (E.D. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
632 F. Supp. 951 p.964
Page 99
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
688.
Cited by:
Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 916, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17098 (N.D.
Tex. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
615 F. Supp. 916 p.934
689.
Cited by:
Langley v. Ryder, 602 F. Supp. 335, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22648 (W.D. La. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7
602 F. Supp. 335 p.338
690.
Cited by:
Baker v. Wade, 553 F. Supp. 1121, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16466 (N.D. Tex. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
553 F. Supp. 1121 p.1136
691.
Cited by:
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 530 F. Supp. 303, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16893, 211 U.S.P.Q.
(BNA) 1114, 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 406 (N.D. Tex. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
530 F. Supp. 303 p.312
692.
Distinguished by:
Robinson v. Stovall, 473 F. Supp. 135, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11592 (N.D. Miss. 1979)
473 F. Supp. 135 p.147
693.
Followed by:
Ellwest Stereo Theaters, Inc. v. Byrd, 472 F. Supp. 702, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11854 (N.D. Tex. 1979)
472 F. Supp. 702 p.705
694.
Cited by:
Fernandes v. Limmer, 465 F. Supp. 493, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14770 (N.D. Tex. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
465 F. Supp. 493 p.498
695.
Cited by:
United States v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18623 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
696.
Cited by:
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lentini, 461 F. Supp. 49, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
16236 (E.D. La. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
461 F. Supp. 49 p.51
697.
Distinguished by:
LaBauve v. La. Wildlife & Fisheries Comm'n, 444 F. Supp. 1370, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20329 (E.D. La.
1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
Page 100
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
444 F. Supp. 1370 p.1385
698.
Cited by:
Graham v. Hill, 444 F. Supp. 584, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19862 (W.D. Tex. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
444 F. Supp. 584 p.588
699.
Cited by:
Morial v. Judiciary Com. of Louisiana, 438 F. Supp. 599, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17110 (E.D. La. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
438 F. Supp. 599 p.608
700.
Cited by:
Henry v. First Nat'l Bank, 424 F. Supp. 633, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12672 (N.D. Miss. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
424 F. Supp. 633 p.638
701.
Cited by:
Universal Amusement Co. v. Vance, 404 F. Supp. 33, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11590 (S.D. Tex. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
404 F. Supp. 33 p.38
702.
Cited by:
Louisiana ex rel. Purkey v. Ciolino, 393 F. Supp. 102, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12813 (E.D. La. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
393 F. Supp. 102 p.111
703.
Cited by:
Printing Industries of Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F. Supp. 801, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7090 (S.D. Tex. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
382 F. Supp. 801 p.815
704.
Cited by:
Bradford v. Wade, 376 F. Supp. 45, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8596 (N.D. Tex. 1974)
705.
Cited by:
Waters v. Schlesinger, 366 F. Supp. 460, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11140 (N.D. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
366 F. Supp. 460 p.462
706.
Cited by:
Deeds v. Beto, 353 F. Supp. 840, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15595 (N.D. Tex. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN6
353 F. Supp. 840 p.842
707.
Cited by:
Page 101
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Mortillaro v. Louisiana, 356 F. Supp. 521, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12368 (E.D. La. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
356 F. Supp. 521 p.528
708.
Cited by:
McGuire v. Roebuck, 347 F. Supp. 1111, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12360 (E.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN4
347 F. Supp. 1111 p.1126
709.
Explained by:
Medrano v. Allee, 347 F. Supp. 605, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13070, 80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3016, 69 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P12904 (S.D. Tex. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7
347 F. Supp. 605 p.611
347 F. Supp. 605 p.618
347 F. Supp. 605 p.619
347 F. Supp. 605 p.621
710.
Cited by:
Jones v. Wade, 338 F. Supp. 441, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15314 (N.D. Tex. 1972)
338 F. Supp. 441 p.442
711.
Cited by:
Scott v. Frey, 330 F. Supp. 365, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12601 (E.D. La. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
330 F. Supp. 365 p.368
712.
Cited by:
Alexander v. Lancaster, 330 F. Supp. 341, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15223 (W.D. La. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
330 F. Supp. 341 p.350
713.
Cited by:
Dawson v. Vance, 329 F. Supp. 1320, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12239 (S.D. Tex. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN11
329 F. Supp. 1320 p.1322
329 F. Supp. 1320 p.1326
329 F. Supp. 1320 p.1327
714.
Cited by:
Shaw v. Garrison, 328 F. Supp. 390, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13079 (E.D. La. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
328 F. Supp. 390 p.401
715.
Cited by:
United States v. New Orleans Book Mart, Inc., 328 F. Supp. 136, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14672 (E.D. La.
1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
328 F. Supp. 136 p.145
Page 102
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
716.
Explained by, Cited by:
Duke v. Texas, 327 F. Supp. 1218, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13119 (E.D. Tex. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7
Explained by:
327 F. Supp. 1218 p.1233
Cited by:
327 F. Supp. 1218 p.1236
717.
Cited by:
Montgomery County Board of Education v. Shelton, 327 F. Supp. 811, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13266 (N.D.
Miss. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
327 F. Supp. 811 p.816
718.
Cited by:
Vista Theatre Corp. v. Ft. Worth, 322 F. Supp. 1147, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14659 (N.D. Tex. 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
322 F. Supp. 1147 p.1148
322 F. Supp. 1147 p.1149
322 F. Supp. 1147 p.1150
719.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Murley v. Smith, 322 F. Supp. 991, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14698 (N.D. Tex. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4, HN5
Distinguished by:
322 F. Supp. 991 p.995
Cited by:
322 F. Supp. 991 p.992
720.
Distinguished by:
Stewart v. Dameron, 321 F. Supp. 886, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14818 (E.D. La. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN9
321 F. Supp. 886 p.888
721.
Cited by:
Duncan v. Perez, 321 F. Supp. 181, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9812 (E.D. La. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
321 F. Supp. 181 p.185
722.
Explained by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Academy, Inc. v. Vance, 320 F. Supp. 1357, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9546 (S.D. Tex. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN3
Explained by:
320 F. Supp. 1357 p.1358
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
320 F. Supp. 1357 p.1363
Page 103
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
723.
Cited by:
Davis v. National Broadcasting Co., 320 F. Supp. 1070, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9137 (E.D. La. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
320 F. Supp. 1070 p.1073
724.
Cited by:
Holmes v. Giarrusso, 319 F. Supp. 832, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9419 (E.D. La. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
319 F. Supp. 832 p.834
725.
Distinguished by:
Douglas v. Pitcher, 319 F. Supp. 706, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9420 (E.D. La. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
319 F. Supp. 706 p.713
726.
Cited by:
Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11306 (N.D. Tex. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4
314 F. Supp. 1217 p.1224
727.
Cited by:
Houston Peace Coalition v. Houston City Council, 310 F. Supp. 457, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12533 (S.D.
Tex. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
310 F. Supp. 457 p.460
728.
Distinguished by:
Hosey v. Jackson, 309 F. Supp. 527, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13106 (S.D. Miss. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7
309 F. Supp. 527 p.535
309 F. Supp. 527 p.536
729.
Cited by:
Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F. Supp. 729, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13141 (N.D. Tex. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN8
308 F. Supp. 729 p.731
308 F. Supp. 729 p.735
730.
Cited by:
Sullivan v. Houston Independent School Dist., 307 F. Supp. 1328, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13342, 13 Fed. R.
Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 519 (S.D. Tex. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
307 F. Supp. 1328 p.1346
731.
Distinguished by:
McGrew v. Jackson, 307 F. Supp. 754, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8711 (S.D. Miss. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Page 104
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
307 F. Supp. 754 p.757
307 F. Supp. 754 p.760
732.
Cited by:
Locke v. Vance, 307 F. Supp. 439, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8679 (S.D. Tex. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5, HN9
307 F. Supp. 439 p.444
307 F. Supp. 439 p.445
733.
Cited by:
Delta Book Distributors, Inc. v. Cronvich, 304 F. Supp. 662, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10205 (E.D. La. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
304 F. Supp. 662 p.667
734.
Cited by:
Walker v. Pointer, 304 F. Supp. 56, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10145, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 959 (N.D. Tex. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
304 F. Supp. 56 p.60
735.
Cited by:
Stein v. Batchelor, 300 F. Supp. 602, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8437 (N.D. Tex. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5, HN7
300 F. Supp. 602 p.605
736.
Cited by:
Vick v. Schiro, 296 F. Supp. 173, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13184 (E.D. La. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
296 F. Supp. 173 p.176
296 F. Supp. 173 p.177
737.
Cited by:
Chinn v. Johnson, 294 F. Supp. 909, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9211 (S.D. Miss. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4
294 F. Supp. 909 p.910
738.
Cited by:
Shaw v. Garrison, 293 F. Supp. 937, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11869 (E.D. La. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7, HN9
293 F. Supp. 937 p.946
293 F. Supp. 937 p.948
739.
Cited by:
Nichols v. Vance, 293 F. Supp. 680, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8117 (S.D. Tex. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
293 F. Supp. 680 p.683
Page 105
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
740.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Spencer v. Dixon, 290 F. Supp. 531, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11576, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 210
(W.D. La. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
Distinguished by:
290 F. Supp. 531 p.541
Cited by:
290 F. Supp. 531 p.533
741.
Cited by:
University Committee to End War in Viet Nam v. Gunn, 289 F. Supp. 469, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9033
(W.D. Tex. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
289 F. Supp. 469 p.471
289 F. Supp. 469 p.472
289 F. Supp. 469 p.473
742.
Cited by:
Sobol v. Perez, 289 F. Supp. 392, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9030 (E.D. La. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
289 F. Supp. 392 p.400
743.
Cited by:
MacHesky v. Bizzell, 288 F. Supp. 295, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9909, 58
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9155 (N.D. Miss. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7
288 F. Supp. 295 p.303
744.
Distinguished by:
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 286 F. Supp. 537, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8790, 68 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2666, 59 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P51994 (E.D. La. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
286 F. Supp. 537 p.543
745.
Cited by:
Chandler v. Garrison, 286 F. Supp. 191, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9098 (E.D. La. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
286 F. Supp. 191 p.199
746.
Distinguished by:
Davis v. Francois, 278 F. Supp. 466, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7425 (E.D. La. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
278 F. Supp. 466 p.467
747.
Distinguished by:
Brown v. Clark, 274 F. Supp. 95, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8101 (E.D. La. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
274 F. Supp. 95 p.97
748.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Sheridan v. Garrison, 273 F. Supp. 673, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7610 (E.D. La. 1967) LexisNexis
Page 106
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5
Distinguished by:
273 F. Supp. 673 p.688
Cited by:
273 F. Supp. 673 p.687
749.
Cited by:
Ware v. Nichols, 266 F. Supp. 564, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8407 (N.D. Miss. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4, HN11
266 F. Supp. 564 p.567
266 F. Supp. 564 p.569
750.
Distinguished by:
United States v. Harrison County, 265 F. Supp. 76, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8980 (S.D. Miss. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
265 F. Supp. 76 p.86
751.
Distinguished by:
Brock v. Schiro, 264 F. Supp. 330, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272 (E.D. La. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4
264 F. Supp. 330 p.337
752.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Cameron v. Johnson, 262 F. Supp. 873, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9596 (S.D. Miss. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
262 F. Supp. 873 p.882
262 F. Supp. 873 p.897
Cited by:
262 F. Supp. 873 p.875
753.
Distinguished by:
Dameron v. Harson, 255 F. Supp. 533, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6615 (W.D. La. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
255 F. Supp. 533 p.539
754.
Cited by:
Bertsch v. Beto, 254 F. Supp. 257, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7638 (S.D. Tex. 1966)
254 F. Supp. 257 p.260
6TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
755.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Fieger v. Mich. Supreme Court, 553 F.3d 955, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 910, 2009 FED App. 20P (6th Cir.)
(6th Cir. Mich. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN7, HN9
Distinguished by:
Page 107
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
553 F.3d 955 p.973
Cited by:
553 F.3d 955 p.972
756.
Cited by:
Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 485 F.3d 343, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10862, 2007 FED App.
164A (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
485 F.3d 343 p.348
757.
Cited by:
Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 474 F.3d 332, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 1323, 2007 FED App. 31P
(6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
474 F.3d 332 p.336
758.
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 HN1, HN7
289 F.3d 929 p.941
759.
Cited by:
Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17307, 2000 FED App. 0237P (6th Cir.), 2000
FED App. 237P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
221 F.3d 846 p.853
760.
Cited by:
Northern Ky. Right to Life Comm. v. Kentucky Registry of Election Fin., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 495 (6th
Cir. Ky. Jan. 7, 1998)
761.
Cited by:
NRA of Am. v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32955, 1997 FED App. 345P (6th Cir.), 1997
FED App. 0345P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
132 F.3d 272 p.285
762.
Cited by:
MacDonald v. Gaskin, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12025 (6th Cir. Mich. May 20, 1997)
763.
Cited by:
Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty v. Deters, 92 F.3d 1412, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19208, 1996 FED
App. 253P (6th Cir.), 1996 FED App. 0253P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
92 F.3d 1412 p.1414
764.
Cited by:
Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 740, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1748, 1996 FED App. 0044P (6th Cir.), 1996 FED
App. 44P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
74 F.3d 740 p.750
Page 108
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
765.
Distinguished by:
Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26473, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1185
(6th Cir. Mich. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
948 F.2d 1004 p.1008
948 F.2d 1004 p.1009
766.
Cited by:
Planned Parenthood Asso. v. Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8322 (6th Cir. Ohio 1987)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN9
822 F.2d 1390 p.1393
767.
Cited by:
Zalewski v. Clinton Township, 633 F.2d 220, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13902 (6th Cir. Mich. 1980)
768.
Cited by:
Roth v. Bank of Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9265 (6th Cir. Mich. 1978)
583 F.2d 527 p.531
769.
Cited by:
Thompson v. Gaffney, 540 F.2d 251, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7580 (6th Cir. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
540 F.2d 251 p.253
770.
Cited by:
Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15226 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
515 F.2d 485 p.492
771.
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 HN4
466 F.2d 879 p.884
772.
Cited by:
United States v. Sanders, 462 F.2d 122, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8862 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1972)
462 F.2d 122 p.125
773.
Cited by:
Garvin v. Rosenau, 455 F.2d 233, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11434 (6th Cir. Mich. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
455 F.2d 233 p.239
774.
Cited by:
Ogletree v. McNamara, 449 F.2d 93, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7926, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7510, 3 Fair
Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1118 (6th Cir. Ohio 1971)
449 F.2d 93 p.99
Page 109
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
775.
Cited by:
Hammond v. Brown, 450 F.2d 480, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7467, 64 Ohio Op. 2d 255 (6th Cir. Ohio 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
450 F.2d 480 p.481
776.
Cited by:
King v. Jones, 450 F.2d 478, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7466 (6th Cir. Ohio 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN5, HN8
450 F.2d 478 p.479
777.
Followed by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Honey v. Goodman, 432 F.2d 333, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7001 (6th Cir. Ky. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN5, HN7
Followed by:
432 F.2d 333 p.336
432 F.2d 333 p.339
432 F.2d 333 p.340
432 F.2d 333 p.342
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
432 F.2d 333 p.344
432 F.2d 333 p.345
778.
Distinguished by:
Dostal v. Stokes, 430 F.2d 1299, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7799 (6th Cir. Ohio 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
430 F.2d 1299 p.1300
779.
Cited by:
Taylor v. Kentucky State Bar Asso., 424 F.2d 478, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10124 (6th Cir. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
424 F.2d 478 p.481
424 F.2d 478 p.482
780.
Cited by:
McSurely v. Ratliff, 398 F.2d 817, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5944 (6th Cir. Ky. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
398 F.2d 817 p.817
781.
Cited by:
United States v. McKart, 395 F.2d 906, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6533 (6th Cir. Ohio 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
395 F.2d 906 p.909
782.
Cited by:
Townsend v. Ohio, 366 F.2d 33, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4961, 10 Ohio Misc. 6, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 91 (6th Cir.
Ohio 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
Page 110
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
366 F.2d 33 p.34
6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
783.
Distinguished by:
Elevation Outdoor Adver., LLC v. City of Morristown, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49043 (E.D. Tenn. June 10,
2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN8
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49043
784.
Cited by:
World Wide St. Preachers' Fellowship v. City of Grand Rapids, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35698 (W.D. Mich.
May 16, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35698
785.
Explained by:
Grider v. Irvin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79561 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 31, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3,
HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79561
786.
Cited by:
ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency / Central Sec. Serv., 438 F. Supp. 2d 754, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57338, 16
A.L.R. Fed. 2d 749 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN8
438 F. Supp. 2d 754 p.776
787.
Cited by:
Entm't Software Ass'n v. Granholm, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2792 ( E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2792
788.
Cited by:
XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights, 341 F. Supp. 2d 765, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26153 (N.D.
Ohio 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
341 F. Supp. 2d 765 p.779
789.
Distinguished by, Followed by, Explained by:
Intimate Ideas, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25248 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7
Distinguished by:
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25248
Followed by:
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25248
Explained by:
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25248
790.
Cited by:
Page 111
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 135 F. Supp. 2d 857, 2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3670 (S.D. Ohio 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
135 F. Supp. 2d 857 p.867
791.
Cited by:
Cyberspace Communs., Inc. v. Engler, 55 F. Supp. 2d 737, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843 ( E.D. Mich.
1999)
55 F. Supp. 2d 737 p.747
792.
Cited by:
J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, 181 F.R.D. 354, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13584 (N.D. Ohio 1998)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
181 F.R.D. 354 p.357
793.
Cited by:
Kevorkian v. Thompson, 947 F. Supp. 1152, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152 ( E.D. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
947 F. Supp. 1152 p.1164
794.
Cited by:
Vittitow v. City of Upper Arlington, 830 F. Supp. 1077, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11762 (S.D. Ohio 1993)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
830 F. Supp. 1077 p.1082
795.
Cited by:
Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 807 F. Supp. 1353, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18493 (S.D. Ohio
1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
807 F. Supp. 1353 p.1356
796.
Cited by:
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Ottawa Indians v. Michigan, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18272 (W.D. Mich. Mar.
21, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
797.
Cited by:
Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Com., 670 F. Supp. 1368, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9076 (S.D. Ohio 1987)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
670 F. Supp. 1368 p.1373
798.
Cited by:
Davis v. Crush, 656 F. Supp. 468, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2162, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26123 (S.D. Ohio
1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
799.
Cited by:
Michigan State Chamber of Commerce v. Austin, 642 F. Supp. 1078, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20862 ( E.D.
Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
642 F. Supp. 1078 p.1079
Page 112
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
800.
Explained by:
Planned Parenthood Asso. v. Cincinnati, 635 F. Supp. 469, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29060 (S.D. Ohio 1986)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
635 F. Supp. 469 p.472
801.
Cited by:
Cook v. Franklin County Municipal Court, 596 F. Supp. 490, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17351 (S.D. Ohio
1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
596 F. Supp. 490 p.506
802.
Cited by:
Davis v. Adult Parole Authority, 512 F. Supp. 533, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11847 (S.D. Ohio 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
512 F. Supp. 533 p.540
803.
Cited by:
Bass v. Spitz, 510 F. Supp. 182, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11283 ( E.D. Mich. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN10
510 F. Supp. 182 p.187
804.
Cited by:
DAYTON FOP, CAPT. JOHN C. POST LODGE NO. 44 v. CITY OF DAYTON, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14384 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
805.
Cited by:
United States v. Michigan, 505 F. Supp. 467, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17715 (W.D. Mich. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
505 F. Supp. 467 p.485
806.
Cited by:
Durham v. Brock, 498 F. Supp. 213, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13525 (M.D. Tenn. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
498 F. Supp. 213 p.218
807.
Cited by:
Record Revolution No. 6 v. Parma, 492 F. Supp. 1157, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14023 (N.D. Ohio 1980)
492 F. Supp. 1157 p.1164
808.
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 HN1, HN3, HN5
Explained by:
448 F. Supp. 306 p.331
448 F. Supp. 306 p.364
Cited by:
448 F. Supp. 306 p.340
Page 113
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
809.
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 HN3
440 F. Supp. 414 p.420
810.
Cited by:
McNea v. Garey, 434 F. Supp. 95, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12972 (N.D. Ohio 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
434 F. Supp. 95 p.103
811.
Cited by:
Cinema Associates, Ltd. v. Oakwood, 417 F. Supp. 146, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14497 (S.D. Ohio 1976)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
417 F. Supp. 146 p.150
812.
Cited by:
Stereo Tape Associates, Inc. v. Levi, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15086, 199 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 285 (W.D. Mich.
1976)
813.
Cited by:
Llewelyn v. Oakland County Prosecutor's Office, 402 F. Supp. 1379, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15370 ( E.D.
Mich. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
814.
Cited by:
Llewelyn v. Oakland County Prosecutor's Office, 402 F. Supp. 1379, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15370, 1975
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15736 ( E.D. Mich. 1975)
402 F. Supp. 1379 p.1393
815.
Cited by:
Smith v. Sheeter, 402 F. Supp. 624, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16699 (S.D. Ohio 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN4
402 F. Supp. 624 p.632
816.
Cited by:
Birkenshaw v. Haley, 409 F. Supp. 13, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8812 ( E.D. Mich. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
409 F. Supp. 13 p.21
817.
Distinguished by:
Garaci v. Memphis, 379 F. Supp. 1393, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8913 (W.D. Tenn. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
379 F. Supp. 1393 p.1396
818.
Cited by:
United Artists Corp. v. Gladwell, 373 F. Supp. 247, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9600, 39 Ohio Misc. 119, 68
Ohio Op. 2d 295 (N.D. Ohio 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
373 F. Supp. 247 p.250
Page 114
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
819.
Distinguished by:
Hartsell v. Knoxville, 375 F. Supp. 340, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11569 (E.D. Tenn. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
375 F. Supp. 340 p.342
820.
Cited by:
Kister v. Ohio Board of Regents, 365 F. Supp. 27, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12260 (S.D. Ohio 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
365 F. Supp. 27 p.35
821.
Distinguished by:
United States v. Collier, 358 F. Supp. 1351, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13865 ( E.D. Mich. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
358 F. Supp. 1351 p.1354
822.
Cited by:
Church v. Board of Education, 339 F. Supp. 538, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14731 ( E.D. Mich. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
339 F. Supp. 538 p.542
823.
Followed by:
Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan, 336 F. Supp. 248, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12471, 2 Env't Rep. Cas.
(BNA) 1837, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. 20415 ( E.D. Mich. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
336 F. Supp. 248 p.253
824.
Cited by:
General Electric Co. v. Hughes, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13506, 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P8245, 3 Fair
Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 752 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 1971)
825.
Cited by:
Peto v. Cook, 339 F. Supp. 1300, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10508, 29 Ohio Misc. 85, 58 Ohio Op. 2d 217
(S.D. Ohio 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
339 F. Supp. 1300 p.1302
826.
Cited by:
Gray v. Toledo, 323 F. Supp. 1281, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14260, 28 Ohio Misc. 141, 57 Ohio Op. 2d 239
(N.D. Ohio 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
323 F. Supp. 1281 p.1284
827.
Cited by:
Hammond v. Brown, 323 F. Supp. 326, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14849, 62 Ohio Op. 2d 65 (N.D. Ohio 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN4
323 F. Supp. 326 p.333
828.
Cited by:
Page 115
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Grove Press, Inc. v. Flask, 326 F. Supp. 574, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12578, 62 Ohio Op. 2d 388 (N.D.
Ohio 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
326 F. Supp. 574 p.578
326 F. Supp. 574 p.579
326 F. Supp. 574 p.581
829.
Cited by:
King v. Jones, 319 F. Supp. 653, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9646, 25 Ohio Misc. 255, 54 Ohio Op. 2d 411
(N.D. Ohio 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
319 F. Supp. 653 p.655
319 F. Supp. 653 p.656
830.
Cited by:
Baxter v. Ellington, 318 F. Supp. 1079, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9972 (E.D. Tenn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN8
318 F. Supp. 1079 p.1084
318 F. Supp. 1079 p.1085
831.
Cited by:
Jackson v. Ellington, 316 F. Supp. 1071, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10348 (W.D. Tenn. 1970)
316 F. Supp. 1071 p.1073
832.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Cholmakjian v. Board of Trustees, 315 F. Supp. 1335, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10584 (W.D. Mich. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
Distinguished by:
315 F. Supp. 1335 p.1344
315 F. Supp. 1335 p.1347
Cited by:
315 F. Supp. 1335 p.1337
315 F. Supp. 1335 p.1348
833.
Cited by:
ABC Books, Inc. v. Benson, 315 F. Supp. 695, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10926 (M.D. Tenn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
315 F. Supp. 695 p.699
834.
Cited by:
Armstrong v. Ellington, 312 F. Supp. 1119, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12173 (W.D. Tenn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
312 F. Supp. 1119 p.1122
835.
Distinguished by:
Polk v. Ellington, 309 F. Supp. 1349, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12624 (W.D. Tenn. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
309 F. Supp. 1349 p.1351
Page 116
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
836.
Distinguished by:
McAlpine v. Reese, 309 F. Supp. 136, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12887 ( E.D. Mich. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
309 F. Supp. 136 p.137
309 F. Supp. 136 p.138
309 F. Supp. 136 p.140
837.
Explained by:
Original Fayette County Civic & Welfare League v. Ellington, 309 F. Supp. 89, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
12913 (W.D. Tenn. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
309 F. Supp. 89 p.96
838.
Cited by:
Boyk v. Mitchell, 312 F. Supp. 934, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13846 (D. Ohio 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
312 F. Supp. 934 p.937
839.
Cited by:
Abrams & Parisi, Inc. v. Canale, 309 F. Supp. 1360, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13933 (D. Tenn. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
309 F. Supp. 1360 p.1363
840.
Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Blackwell, 308 F. Supp. 361, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8908 ( E.D. Mich. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
308 F. Supp. 361 p.374
841.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Ellington, 300 F. Supp. 789, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591 (M.D. Tenn. 1969)
300 F. Supp. 789 p.793
842.
Cited by:
Kirkwood v. Ellington, 298 F. Supp. 461, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8979 (W.D. Tenn. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
298 F. Supp. 461 p.463
298 F. Supp. 461 p.466
843.
Cited by:
Dobbins v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 292 F. Supp. 413, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
10133, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9912, 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 387, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2313, 58
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9158 (S.D. Ohio 1968)
292 F. Supp. 413 p.434
844.
Followed by:
Gorman v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 225, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10124, 22 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6061, 68-2
U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P12553 ( E.D. Mich. 1968)
Page 117
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
288 F. Supp. 225 p.225
845.
Cited by:
Cambist Films, Inc. v. Tribell, 293 F. Supp. 407, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8099 (E.D. Ky. 1968)
293 F. Supp. 407 p.410
846.
Cited by:
Liveright v. Joint Committee of General Assembly, 279 F. Supp. 205, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8968 (M.D.
Tenn. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
279 F. Supp. 205 p.217
847.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
McSurely v. Ratliff, 282 F. Supp. 848, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7817 (E.D. Ky. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
282 F. Supp. 848 p.856
Cited by:
282 F. Supp. 848 p.852
282 F. Supp. 848 p.853
848.
Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Baker v. Bindner, 274 F. Supp. 658, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8143 (W.D. Ky. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4
Followed by:
274 F. Supp. 658 p.660
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
274 F. Supp. 658 p.665
849.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Brooks v. Briley, 274 F. Supp. 538, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7601, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 478
(M.D. Tenn. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN6, HN11
Distinguished by:
274 F. Supp. 538 p.548
Cited by:
274 F. Supp. 538 p.549
274 F. Supp. 538 p.550
850.
Cited by:
Roberts v. Clement, 252 F. Supp. 835, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8326 (E.D. Tenn. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
252 F. Supp. 835 p.840
7TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
851.
Cited by:
Page 118
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Hodgkins v. Peterson, 355 F.3d 1048, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 910 (7th Cir. Ind. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
355 F.3d 1048 p.1056
852.
Distinguished by:
United States v. Holm, 326 F.3d 872, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6869 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
326 F.3d 872 p.875
853.
Cited by:
Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22359 (7th Cir. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
225 F.3d 899 p.908
854.
Cited by:
Winkler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31048, 36 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan)
23 (7th Cir. Ind. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
101 F.3d 1196 p.1201
855.
Cited by:
Smart v. Board of Trustees, 34 F.3d 432, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23666, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH)
P43270, 9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1505 (7th Cir. Ill. 1994)
34 F.3d 432 p.434
856.
Cited by:
Arkebauer v. Kiley, 985 F.2d 1351, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
985 F.2d 1351 p.1358
857.
Cited by:
National People's Action v. Wilmette, 914 F.2d 1008, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 17448 (7th Cir. Ill. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
914 F.2d 1008 p.1013
858.
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
827 F.2d 234 p.240
859.
Cited by:
Schultz v. Frisby, 807 F.2d 1339, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34893 (7th Cir. Wis. 1986)
807 F.2d 1339 p.1349
860.
Distinguished by:
Collins v. County of Kendall, 807 F.2d 95, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34634 (7th Cir. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9, HN11
Page 119
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
807 F.2d 95 p.100
861.
Cited by:
O'Brien v. Town of Caledonia, 748 F.2d 403, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16875 (7th Cir. Wis. 1984)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
748 F.2d 403 p.409
862.
Cited by:
Planned Parenthood Asso. v. Kempiners, 700 F.2d 1115, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30239 (7th Cir. Ill. 1983)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
700 F.2d 1115 p.1122
863.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Sekerez v. Supreme Court of Indiana, 685 F.2d 202, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16745 (7th Cir. Ind. 1982)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN11
Distinguished by:
685 F.2d 202 p.208
Cited by:
685 F.2d 202 p.205
864.
Cited by:
Reichenberger v. Pritchard, 660 F.2d 280, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17589 (7th Cir. Wis. 1981) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
660 F.2d 280 p.286
865.
Cited by:
Perry Local Educators' Ass'n v. Hohlt, 652 F.2d 1286, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12040, 107 L.R.R.M. (BNA)
3026 (7th Cir. Ind. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
652 F.2d 1286 p.1296
866.
Cited by:
United States v. Kuehn, 562 F.2d 427, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11517 (7th Cir. Ill. 1977) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
562 F.2d 427 p.431
867.
Distinguished by:
Grandco Corp. v. Rochford, 536 F.2d 197, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8660 (7th Cir. Ill. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
536 F.2d 197 p.202
868.
Cited by:
Chicago Area Military Project v. Chicago, 508 F.2d 921, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16690 (7th Cir. Ill. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
508 F.2d 921 p.926
Page 120
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
869.
Cited by:
Paulos v. Breier, 507 F.2d 1383, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5443 (7th Cir. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
507 F.2d 1383 p.1386
870.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Herzbrun v. Milwaukee County, 504 F.2d 1189, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467 (7th Cir. Wis. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
504 F.2d 1189 p.1197
Cited by:
504 F.2d 1189 p.1193
871.
Cited by:
Holiday Magic, Inc. v. Warren, 497 F.2d 687, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8556 (7th Cir. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
497 F.2d 687 p.695
872.
Cited by:
Jacobs v. Board of School Comm'rs, 490 F.2d 601, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6471, 18 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 715 (7th Cir. Ind. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
490 F.2d 601 p.606
873.
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 HN7
489 F.2d 933 p.935
874.
Cited by:
Wood v. Dennis, 489 F.2d 849, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7246, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2662, 72 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P14052 (7th Cir. Ill. 1973)
489 F.2d 849 p.855
875.
Cited by:
Kochlacs v. Local Board No. 92, 476 F.2d 557, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11483 (7th Cir. Ill. 1973)
476 F.2d 557 p.559
876.
Cited by:
United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6620, 22 A.L.R. Fed. 159 (7th Cir. Ill.
1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8, HN9
472 F.2d 340 p.356
877.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7265, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 798 (7th
Cir. Ill. 1972)
468 F.2d 389 p.415
Page 121
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
878.
Cited by:
Devlin v. Sosbe, 465 F.2d 169, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8156 (7th Cir. Ind. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
465 F.2d 169 p.172
879.
Distinguished by:
Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F.2d 603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8705 (7th Cir. Ill. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5, HN8
463 F.2d 603 p.608
880.
Distinguished by:
Massignani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 438 F.2d 1276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12275 (7th
Cir. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
438 F.2d 1276 p.1278
881.
Cited by:
Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9449 (7th Cir. Ill. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
435 F.2d 1059 p.1062
882.
Distinguished by:
Arensman v. Brown, 430 F.2d 190, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7928 (7th Cir. Ind. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
430 F.2d 190 p.192
430 F.2d 190 p.193
883.
Cited by:
United States ex rel. Miller v. Pate, 429 F.2d 1001, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8551 (7th Cir. Ill. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
429 F.2d 1001 p.1003
884.
Cited by:
Muller v. Conlisk, 429 F.2d 901, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8444 (7th Cir. Ill. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
429 F.2d 901 p.903
885.
Cited by:
Boyle v. Landry, 422 F.2d 631, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (7th Cir. Ill. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN7
422 F.2d 631 p.633
422 F.2d 631 p.634
886.
Cited by:
Soglin v. Kauffman, 418 F.2d 163, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10315 (7th Cir. Wis. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Page 122
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
418 F.2d 163 p.166
887.
Cited by:
Stamler v. Willis, 415 F.2d 1365, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11215 (7th Cir. Ill. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN4
415 F.2d 1365 p.1369
888.
Cited by:
Schnell v. Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13238, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 552 (7th
Cir. Ill. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
407 F.2d 1084 p.1086
889.
Cited by:
United States v. Woodard, 376 F.2d 136, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6872 (7th Cir. Ill. 1967)
376 F.2d 136 p.144
890.
Cited by:
Sarfaty v. Nowak, 369 F.2d 256, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4811, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9750, 10 Fed. R.
Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 241, 54 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9024 (7th Cir. Ill. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
369 F.2d 256 p.258
891.
Cited by:
Ivy v. Katzenbach, 351 F.2d 32, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4453 (7th Cir. Ill. 1965) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
351 F.2d 32 p.34
7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
892.
Cited by:
Big Hat Books v. Prosecutors: Adams, 565 F. Supp. 2d 981, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50533 (S.D. Ind. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
565 F. Supp. 2d 981 p.997
893.
Cited by:
Dressler v. Ptacek, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 17, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3,
HN5
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408
894.
Cited by:
Union Pac. R.R. v. Chi. Transit Auth., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29639 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29639
895.
Cited by:
Laskowski v. Snyder, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2543 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 10, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2543
Page 123
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
896.
Cited by:
United States v. Marzook, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27305 (N.D. Ill. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN8
383 F. Supp. 2d 1056 p.1061
897.
Cited by:
Hodgkins v. Peterson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22978 (S.D. Ind. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
175 F. Supp. 2d 1132 p.1140
898.
Cited by:
Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of W. Chi., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5615 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2001)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5615
899.
Cited by:
Hodgkins v. Peterson, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11801 (S.D. Ind. July 3, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11801
900.
Cited by:
Hodgkins v. Goldsmith, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9302 (S.D. Ind. July 3, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9302
901.
Cited by:
In re Mexico Money Transfer Litig., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17268 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 1999) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17268
902.
Cited by:
Special Souvenirs, Inc. v. Town of Wayne, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10539 (E.D. Wis.
1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
56 F. Supp. 2d 1062 p.1078
903.
Cited by:
Torres v. Frias, 68 F. Supp. 2d 935, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10692 (N.D. Ill. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
68 F. Supp. 2d 935 p.940
904.
Cited by:
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1806 (S.D. Ind. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
953 F. Supp. 1047 p.1052
905.
Cited by:
Page 124
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
SSDD Enters. v. Village of Lansing, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6073 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 1996) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
906.
Cited by:
Carbone v. Zollar, 845 F. Supp. 534, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6134 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
845 F. Supp. 534 p.538
907.
Cited by:
Barker v. Wisconsin Ethics Bd., 815 F. Supp. 1216, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3373 (W.D. Wis. 1993)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
815 F. Supp. 1216 p.1219
908.
Cited by:
Buckley v. Illinois Judicial Inquiry Bd., 801 F. Supp. 83, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12595 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
801 F. Supp. 83 p.98
909.
Cited by:
Paul v. Indiana Election Bd., 743 F. Supp. 616, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9249 (S.D. Ind. 1990) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
743 F. Supp. 616 p.619
910.
Cited by:
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 743 F. Supp. 645, 1990 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9218 (W.D. Wis. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
743 F. Supp. 645 p.654
911.
Cited by:
Clay v. Rockford, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9443 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 1989)
912.
Explained by:
American Nat'l Bank v. Parkman, 702 F. Supp. 168, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11961 (N.D. Ill. 1988)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN9
702 F. Supp. 168 p.171
913.
Cited by:
Glen Theatre, Inc. v. South Bend, 726 F. Supp. 728, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17451 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
726 F. Supp. 728 p.731
914.
Cited by:
American Booksellers Asso. v. Hudnut, 598 F. Supp. 1316, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21893, 11 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1105 (S.D. Ind. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
598 F. Supp. 1316 p.1328
915.
Cited by:
LINDSTROM v. ILLINOIS, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18253 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
Page 125
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
916.
Cited by:
Sappenfield v. Indiana, 574 F. Supp. 1034, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11363 (N.D. Ind. 1983) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
574 F. Supp. 1034 p.1037
917.
Cited by:
Citizens Action Coalition, Inc. v. Westfall, 582 F. Supp. 11, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11440 (S.D. Ind. 1983)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
582 F. Supp. 11 p.15
918.
Cited by:
Communist Workers Party v. East Chicago, 556 F. Supp. 47, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17058 (N.D. Ind.
1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
556 F. Supp. 47 p.49
919.
Cited by:
ZARKO SEKEREZ v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16509 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 23,
1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
920.
Cited by:
Spartacus Youth League v. Board of Trustees, 502 F. Supp. 789, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10737 (N.D. Ill.
1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
502 F. Supp. 789 p.797
921.
Followed by:
Tepper v. State Bar of Wisconsin, 489 F. Supp. 115, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11275 (E.D. Wis. 1980)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
489 F. Supp. 115 p.118
922.
Cited by:
Seraphim v. Judicial Conduct Panel, 483 F. Supp. 295, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9981 (E.D. Wis. 1980)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
483 F. Supp. 295 p.298
923.
Cited by:
Marsico v. Elrod, 469 F. Supp. 825, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13948, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2478 (N.D. Ill.
1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
469 F. Supp. 825 p.828
924.
Explained by:
Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19404, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1915 (N.D. Ill.
1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
447 F. Supp. 676 p.681
925.
Cited by:
Wynn v. Scott, 449 F. Supp. 1302, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18431 (N.D. Ill. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 126
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
HN3
449 F. Supp. 1302 p.1310
926.
Cited by:
Eagle Books, Inc. v. Reinhard, 418 F. Supp. 345, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14847 (N.D. Ill. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
418 F. Supp. 345 p.353
418 F. Supp. 345 p.354
927.
Cited by:
Lawrence University Bicentennial Com. v. Appleton, 409 F. Supp. 1319, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15750
(E.D. Wis. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
409 F. Supp. 1319 p.1327
928.
Cited by:
Burdick v. Miech, 409 F. Supp. 982, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15021 (E.D. Wis. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7
409 F. Supp. 982 p.985
929.
Cited by:
Scoma v. Chicago Bd. of Education, 391 F. Supp. 452, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5797 (N.D. Ill. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
391 F. Supp. 452 p.459
930.
Explained by, Cited by:
Palermo v. Sendak, 382 F. Supp. 1387, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6394 (N.D. Ind. 1974)
Explained by:
382 F. Supp. 1387 p.1390
Cited by:
382 F. Supp. 1387 p.1389
931.
Cited by:
Paulos v. Breier, 371 F. Supp. 523, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9638 (E.D. Wis. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
371 F. Supp. 523 p.526
371 F. Supp. 523 p.527
932.
Cited by:
Undergraduate Student Asso. v. Peltason, 359 F. Supp. 320, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15437, 17 Fed. R. Serv.
2d (Callaghan) 1112 (N.D. Ill. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
359 F. Supp. 320 p.323
933.
Cited by:
Driscoll v. Schmidt, 354 F. Supp. 1225, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14697 (W.D. Wis. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
354 F. Supp. 1225 p.1229
Page 127
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
934.
Cited by:
Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11526 (E.D. Wis. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
349 F. Supp. 1078 p.1084
935.
Cited by:
United States v. B & H Dist. Corp., 347 F. Supp. 905, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12000 (W.D. Wis. 1972)
347 F. Supp. 905 p.907
936.
Cited by:
Brown v. Ceci, 331 F. Supp. 718, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13888 (E.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN6
331 F. Supp. 718 p.720
937.
Cited by:
Kennan v. Warren, 328 F. Supp. 525, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13447 (W.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
328 F. Supp. 525 p.533
938.
Cited by:
National Asso. of Theatre Owners, Inc. v. Motion Picture Com., 328 F. Supp. 6, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13037 (E.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
328 F. Supp. 6 p.11
939.
Cited by:
Pederson v. Breier, 327 F. Supp. 1382, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13149 (E.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
327 F. Supp. 1382 p.1388
940.
Cited by:
Sutherland v. De Wulf, 323 F. Supp. 740, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14483 (S.D. Ill. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN9
323 F. Supp. 740 p.743
323 F. Supp. 740 p.747
323 F. Supp. 740 p.748
941.
Cited by:
Brooks v. Peters, 322 F. Supp. 1273, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14545 (E.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
322 F. Supp. 1273 p.1275
942.
Followed by:
Gall v. Lawler, 322 F. Supp. 1223, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14884 (E.D. Wis. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
322 F. Supp. 1223 p.1225
Page 128
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
943.
Cited by:
Ashland Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 322 F. Supp. 82, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14815 (N.D. Ill.
1971)
322 F. Supp. 82 p.86
944.
Distinguished by:
Koehler v. Ogilvie, 53 F.R.D. 98, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12231, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 714 (D. Ill.
1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
53 F.R.D. 98 p.104
945.
Followed by:
Amato v. Ruth, 332 F. Supp. 326, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13200 (W.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN2, HN3, HN4
332 F. Supp. 326 p.332
332 F. Supp. 326 p.333
332 F. Supp. 326 p.334
946.
Cited by:
Hartke v. Roudenbush, 321 F. Supp. 1370, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9111 (S.D. Ind. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
321 F. Supp. 1370 p.1373
947.
Cited by:
Oestreich v. Hale, 321 F. Supp. 445, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9289 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
321 F. Supp. 445 p.447
948.
Cited by:
Babbitz v. McCann, 320 F. Supp. 219, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9494 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
320 F. Supp. 219 p.222
949.
Cited by:
United States v. B & H Dist. Corp., 319 F. Supp. 1231, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9438 (W.D. Wis. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
319 F. Supp. 1231 p.1232
950.
Cited by:
Ponti v. Madison, 319 F. Supp. 446, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411 (W.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
319 F. Supp. 446 p.449
951.
Cited by:
Konen v. Spice, 318 F. Supp. 630, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10371 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
Page 129
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
318 F. Supp. 630 p.632
952.
Cited by:
Wisconsin Student Asso. v. Regents of University of Wis., 318 F. Supp. 591, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9895
(W.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
318 F. Supp. 591 p.596
953.
Cited by:
Simpson v. Spice, 318 F. Supp. 554, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9908 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
318 F. Supp. 554 p.556
954.
Cited by:
Gardner v. Ceci, 312 F. Supp. 516, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11889 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2, HN5
312 F. Supp. 516 p.518
312 F. Supp. 516 p.519
955.
Cited by:
Kois v. Breier, 312 F. Supp. 19, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11833 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
312 F. Supp. 19 p.25
956.
Cited by:
Groppi v. Froehlich, 311 F. Supp. 765, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12175 (W.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
311 F. Supp. 765 p.769
957.
Distinguished by:
Babbitz v. McCann, 310 F. Supp. 293, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12629 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
310 F. Supp. 293 p.296
958.
Cited by:
Bartholomew v. Port, 309 F. Supp. 1340, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13012, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2706, 62 Lab.
Cas. (CCH) P52278 (E.D. Wis. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN4
309 F. Supp. 1340 p.1342
309 F. Supp. 1340 p.1343
959.
Distinguished by:
Babbitz v. McCann, 306 F. Supp. 400, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8791 (E.D. Wis. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
306 F. Supp. 400 p.402
960.
Cited by:
Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10270 (N.D. Ind. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 130
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
HN3, HN4
303 F. Supp. 62 p.65
303 F. Supp. 62 p.71
961.
Cited by:
Eisenberg v. Boardman, 302 F. Supp. 1360, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9933 (W.D. Wis. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
302 F. Supp. 1360 p.1364
962.
Distinguished by:
Wilson v. Simon, 299 F. Supp. 305, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8530 (N.D. Ill. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5, HN7
299 F. Supp. 305 p.309
299 F. Supp. 305 p.311
299 F. Supp. 305 p.312
299 F. Supp. 305 p.313
963.
Cited by:
Wisconsin State Employees Asso. v. Wisconsin Natural Resources Bd., 298 F. Supp. 339, 1969 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10611, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 525, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3221, 60 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P52061
(W.D. Wis. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
298 F. Supp. 339 p.346
298 F. Supp. 339 p.349
964.
Cited by:
Pape v. Time, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 1087, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9216 (N.D. Ill. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
294 F. Supp. 1087 p.1091
965.
Cited by:
Soglin v. Kauffman, 295 F. Supp. 978, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11744 (W.D. Wis. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN8
295 F. Supp. 978 p.983
295 F. Supp. 978 p.985
295 F. Supp. 978 p.995
966.
Cited by:
Cambist Films, Inc. v. Illinois, 292 F. Supp. 185, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9564 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5
292 F. Supp. 185 p.188
967.
Followed by:
Landry v. Daley, 288 F. Supp. 200, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9412 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9
288 F. Supp. 200 p.204
288 F. Supp. 200 p.206
288 F. Supp. 200 p.213
288 F. Supp. 200 p.214
Page 131
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
288 F. Supp. 200 p.215
288 F. Supp. 200 p.216
288 F. Supp. 200 p.217
968.
Cited by:
Landry v. Daley, 288 F. Supp. 194, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
288 F. Supp. 194 p.199
969.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Stamler v. Willis, 287 F. Supp. 734, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9523 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN5
287 F. Supp. 734 p.741
287 F. Supp. 734 p.744
970.
Cited by:
Snyder v. Board of Trustees, 286 F. Supp. 927, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9150, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 540 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
286 F. Supp. 927 p.934
971.
Cited by:
Goldman v. Olson, 286 F. Supp. 35, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10011 (W.D. Wis. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN8
286 F. Supp. 35 p.47
972.
Followed by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 938, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12601 (N.D. Ill. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN4, HN6
Followed by:
280 F. Supp. 938 p.946
280 F. Supp. 938 p.948
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
280 F. Supp. 938 p.947
280 F. Supp. 938 p.948
280 F. Supp. 938 p.952
973.
Cited by:
Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 929, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8042 (N.D. Ill. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
280 F. Supp. 929 p.936
280 F. Supp. 929 p.938
974.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Zwicker v. Boll, 270 F. Supp. 131, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11316 (W.D. Wis. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN9
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
270 F. Supp. 131 p.145
Page 132
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Cited by:
270 F. Supp. 131 p.135
8TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
975.
Cited by:
Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Nebraska, 210 F.3d 887, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6654, 50 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA)
1361, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20449 (8th Cir. Neb. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
210 F.3d 887 p.899
976.
Cited by:
Beavers v. Arkansas State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 151 F.3d 838, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (8th Cir.
Ark. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
151 F.3d 838 p.841
977.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Gilmour v. Rogerson, 117 F.3d 368, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 15396 (8th Cir. Iowa 1997) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
117 F.3d 368 p.374
978.
Cited by:
Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15020, 20 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1384 (8th Cir. Mo. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
968 F.2d 684 p.690
979.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4501 (8th Cir. N.D. 1989)
871 F.2d 762 p.765
980.
Cited by:
Lewellen v. Raff, 843 F.2d 1103, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161 (8th Cir. Ark. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
843 F.2d 1103 p.1109
981.
Cited by:
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Barry, 825 F.2d 1220, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10022 (8th Cir. Minn. 1987)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
825 F.2d 1220 p.1224
982.
Cited by:
Pursley v. Fayetteville, 820 F.2d 951, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7448 (8th Cir. Ark. 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9
820 F.2d 951 p.957
983.
Cited by:
Page 133
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 687 F.2d 1122, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16542, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) P98778 (8th Cir. Mo. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
687 F.2d 1122 p.1127
984.
Cited by:
Vorbeck v. Schnicker, 660 F.2d 1260, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17213 (8th Cir. Mo. 1981) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9
660 F.2d 1260 p.1265
985.
Followed by:
Central Ave. News, Inc. v. Minot, 651 F.2d 565, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12496, 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
1540 (8th Cir. N.D. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN11
651 F.2d 565 p.569
986.
Cited by:
Coley v. Clinton, 635 F.2d 1364, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11398, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1219 (8th
Cir. Ark. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
635 F.2d 1364 p.1371
987.
Cited by:
United States v. Moss, 604 F.2d 569, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12463, 44 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5502, 79-2 U.S.
Tax Cas. (CCH) P9580 (8th Cir. Neb. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
604 F.2d 569 p.571
988.
Cited by:
George v. Parratt, 602 F.2d 818, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13290 (8th Cir. Neb. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
602 F.2d 818 p.820
989.
Cited by:
Simpson v. Weeks, 570 F.2d 240, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13013 (8th Cir. Ark. 1978)
570 F.2d 240 p.242
990.
Cited by:
Horn v. Burns & Roe, 536 F.2d 251, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8711 (8th Cir. Neb. 1976)
536 F.2d 251 p.256
991.
Cited by:
Big Eagle v. Andera, 508 F.2d 1293, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16694 (8th Cir. S.D. 1975)
508 F.2d 1293 p.1297
992.
Cited by:
Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7693 (8th Cir. Ark. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
485 F.2d 1087 p.1088
Page 134
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
993.
Cited by:
Euge v. Smith, 418 F.2d 1296, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9758 (8th Cir. Mo. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
418 F.2d 1296 p.1299
8TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
994.
Cited by:
Ben. Res., Inc. v. Apprize Tech. Solutions, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39701 (D. Minn. May 15, 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39701
995.
Cited by:
Ebiza, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 434 F. Supp. 2d 710, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36214 (S.D. Iowa 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
434 F. Supp. 2d 710 p.725
996.
Cited by:
In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26070 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26070
997.
Cited by:
Moore v. Kinney, 119 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16609 (D. Neb. 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
119 F. Supp. 2d 1022 p.1033
998.
Cited by:
Little Rock Family Planning Servs., P.A. v. Jegley, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22325 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 13, 1998)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22325
999.
Cited by:
Harper v. Crockett, 868 F. Supp. 1557, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19732 (E.D. Ark. 1994) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
868 F. Supp. 1557 p.1574
1000.
Cited by:
ILQ Invs. v. City of Rochester, 816 F. Supp. 516, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3357 (D. Minn. 1993) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN5
816 F. Supp. 516 p.522
1001.
Followed by, Cited by:
Alexander v. Thornburgh, 713 F. Supp. 1278, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5011 (D. Minn. 1989) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Followed by:
Page 135
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
713 F. Supp. 1278 p.1287
Cited by:
713 F. Supp. 1278 p.1286
1002.
Cited by:
Lemons v. Mycro Group Co., 667 F. Supp. 665, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7782 (S.D. Iowa 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
667 F. Supp. 665 p.667
1003.
Explained by, Cited by:
Trucke v. Erlemeier, 657 F. Supp. 1382, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3079 (N.D. Iowa 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN9
Explained by:
657 F. Supp. 1382 p.1391
Cited by:
657 F. Supp. 1382 p.1393
1004.
Cited by:
Minneapolis Urban League, Inc. v. Minneapolis, 650 F. Supp. 303, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21429 (D. Minn.
1986)
650 F. Supp. 303 p.306
1005.
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 HN1
612 F. Supp. 1400 p.1410
1006.
Explained 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 HN1, HN7
523 F. Supp. 359 p.361
1007.
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 HN7
504 F. Supp. 1092 p.1101
1008.
Cited by:
Wild Cinemas of Little Rock, Inc. v. Bentley, 499 F. Supp. 655, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14434 (E.D. Ark.
1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
499 F. Supp. 655 p.660
1009.
Cited by:
Walker v. Wegner, 477 F. Supp. 648, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9495 (D.S.D. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
Page 136
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
477 F. Supp. 648 p.654
1010.
Cited by:
Hughes v. Simmerman, 444 F. Supp. 181, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19767 (E.D. Mo. 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
444 F. Supp. 181 p.182
1011.
Cited by:
Hanson v. United States, 417 F. Supp. 30, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16544 (D. Minn. 1976)
417 F. Supp. 30 p.34
1012.
Cited by:
Johnson v. McNary, 414 F. Supp. 684, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14947 (E.D. Mo. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
414 F. Supp. 684 p.688
1013.
Explained by:
Conners v. Riley, 395 F. Supp. 1244, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12357 (W.D. Ark. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
395 F. Supp. 1244 p.1246
1014.
Cited by:
Wagner v. Simon, 412 F. Supp. 426, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5759 (W.D. Mo. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
412 F. Supp. 426 p.430
1015.
Cited by:
Mining v. Wheeler, 378 F. Supp. 1115, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9160 (W.D. Mo. 1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
378 F. Supp. 1115 p.1121
1016.
Cited by:
Vietnam Veterans against War v. Benecke, 63 F.R.D. 675, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7855 (D. Mo. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
63 F.R.D. 675 p.683
1017.
Cited by:
Peterson v. Board of Education, 370 F. Supp. 1208, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11841 (D. Neb. 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
370 F. Supp. 1208 p.1212
1018.
Explained by:
McCright v. Olson, 367 F. Supp. 937, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614 (D.N.D. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
367 F. Supp. 937 p.942
Page 137
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1019.
Cited by:
Doe v. Turner, 361 F. Supp. 1288, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12417 (S.D. Iowa 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
361 F. Supp. 1288 p.1292
1020.
Cited by:
Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F. Supp. 634, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15206 (D. Minn. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
337 F. Supp. 634 p.636
1021.
Cited by:
Rowland v. Sigler, 327 F. Supp. 821, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13654 (D. Neb. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN10
327 F. Supp. 821 p.824
1022.
Distinguished by:
Moyer v. Nelson, 324 F. Supp. 1224, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14413 (S.D. Iowa 1971)
324 F. Supp. 1224 p.1230
1023.
Cited by:
Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Hays, 318 F. Supp. 1368, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9896, 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH)
P8024, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1034 (E.D. Ark. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
318 F. Supp. 1368 p.1372
1024.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Doe v. Randall, 314 F. Supp. 32, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11648 (D. Minn. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
314 F. Supp. 32 p.36
314 F. Supp. 32 p.37
Cited by:
314 F. Supp. 32 p.34
314 F. Supp. 32 p.35
1025.
Cited by:
Eve Productions, Inc. v. Shannon, 312 F. Supp. 26, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12844 (E.D. Mo. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
312 F. Supp. 26 p.29
1026.
Cited by:
Burton v. St. Louis, 309 F. Supp. 1078, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12990 (E.D. Mo. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4
309 F. Supp. 1078 p.1079
309 F. Supp. 1078 p.1080
309 F. Supp. 1078 p.1082
Page 138
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1027.
Followed by:
Ripley v. Stidd, 308 F. Supp. 854, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12927 (D. Minn. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
308 F. Supp. 854 p.858
1028.
Distinguished by:
Koen v. Long, 302 F. Supp. 1383, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9936, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 471 (E.D.
Mo. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN10
302 F. Supp. 1383 p.1390
302 F. Supp. 1383 p.1393
302 F. Supp. 1383 p.1399
1029.
Cited by:
Wilhelm v. Turner, 298 F. Supp. 1335, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9054 (S.D. Iowa 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
298 F. Supp. 1335 p.1337
1030.
Cited by:
Duluth Board of Trade v. Head, 298 F. Supp. 678, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8991 (D. Minn. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
298 F. Supp. 678 p.680
1031.
Cited by:
Rollins v. Shannon, 292 F. Supp. 580, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9602, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 376
(E.D. Mo. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN7
292 F. Supp. 580 p.588
292 F. Supp. 580 p.589
292 F. Supp. 580 p.590
292 F. Supp. 580 p.592
1032.
Cited by:
Drexler v. Walters, 290 F. Supp. 150, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12458 (D. Minn. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
290 F. Supp. 150 p.156
8TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
1033.
Cited by:
In re Wagner, 18 B.R. 339, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4570, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1065, 6 Collier Bankr. Cas.
2d (MB) 317 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1982)
18 B.R. 339 p.341
9TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
1034.
Followed by:
Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25512 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 139
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
506 F.3d 886 p.891
1035.
Cited by:
Ariz. Right to Life PAC v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3379, 2003 Cal. Daily Op.
Service 1564, 2003 D.A.R. 2068 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
320 F.3d 1002 p.1006
1036.
Cited by:
Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2058, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1154, 2003
D.A.R. 1456 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
319 F.3d 483 p.493
1037.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Andersen v. United States, 298 F.3d 804, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15253, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6771,
2002 D.A.R. 8546, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5454 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
298 F.3d 804 p.813
Cited by:
298 F.3d 804 p.810
1038.
Cited by:
Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12869, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4855, 2001
D.A.R. 5955 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
254 F.3d 807 p.811
1039.
Cited by:
LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3379, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1772, 2000
D.A.R. 2473, 2000 D.A.R. 2475 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
205 F.3d 1146 p.1156
1040.
Cited by:
San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27384, 96 Cal. Daily
Op. Service 7760, 96 D.A.R. 12811 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
98 F.3d 1121 p.1130
1041.
Cited by:
Bland v. Fessler, 88 F.3d 729, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15829, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4944, 96 D.A.R.
7982, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2072 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
88 F.3d 729 p.737
1042.
Cited by:
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31415, 15
Immigr. Cas. Rep. A2-355, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8608, 95 D.A.R. 14893 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
70 F.3d 1045 p.1058
Page 140
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1043.
Cited by:
Chambers v. United States, 22 F.3d 939, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8440, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2833, 94
D.A.R. 5441 (9th Cir. Cal. 1994)
22 F.3d 939 p.944
1044.
Cited by:
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Thornburgh, 970 F.2d 501, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS
16186, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6323, 92 D.A.R. 10032 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
970 F.2d 501 p.508
1045.
Cited by:
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Thornburgh, 940 F.2d 445, 970 F.2d 501, 1991 U.S. App.
LEXIS 16100, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5979, 91 D.A.R. 9040, 91 D.A.R. 9691 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
940 F.2d 445 p.451
1046.
Cited by:
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 890 F.2d 184, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS
17437, 67 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 151 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
890 F.2d 184 p.191
1047.
Cited by:
IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 118 (9th Cir. Nev. 1988) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
836 F.2d 1185 p.1189
1048.
Cited by:
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 827 F.2d 640, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12156, 63 Rad.
Reg. 2d (P & F) 1175, Util. L. Rep. (CCH) P13305 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
827 F.2d 640 p.644
1049.
Cited by:
San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Committee v. March Fong Eu, 826 F.2d 814, 1987 U.S. App.
LEXIS 14552 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
826 F.2d 814 p.821
1050.
Cited by:
BSA, Inc. v. King County, 804 F.2d 1104, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33905 (9th Cir. Wash. 1986) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
804 F.2d 1104 p.1110
1051.
Cited by:
San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm. v. March Fong Eu, 792 F.2d 802, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS
26199 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
792 F.2d 802 p.808
Page 141
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1052.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
J-R Distribs. v. Eikenberry, 725 F.2d 482, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25768 (9th Cir. Wash. 1984) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN6
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
725 F.2d 482 p.502
Cited by:
725 F.2d 482 p.486
1053.
Cited by:
Planned Parenthood of Cent. & Northern Arizona v. Arizona, 718 F.2d 938, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15984
(9th Cir. Ariz. 1983)
718 F.2d 938 p.946
1054.
Explained by:
Reich v. Larson, 695 F.2d 1147, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27879 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
695 F.2d 1147 p.1150
1055.
Cited by:
Clark v. Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11534, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 957 (9th
Cir. Cal. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
650 F.2d 1033 p.1039
1056.
Cited by:
Adamian v. Lombardi, 608 F.2d 1224, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11180 (9th Cir. Nev. 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
608 F.2d 1224 p.1226
1057.
Cited by:
Loya v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 583 F.2d 1110, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8441 (9th Cir. Cal.
1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
583 F.2d 1110 p.1114
1058.
Distinguished by:
Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6659 (9th Cir. Cal. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
469 F.2d 1159 p.1164
1059.
Explained by:
Krahm v. Graham, 461 F.2d 703, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9653 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4, HN7, HN8
461 F.2d 703 p.706
461 F.2d 703 p.708
461 F.2d 703 p.709
Page 142
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1060.
Cited by:
Padilla v. Ackerman, 460 F.2d 477, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9723 (9th Cir. Cal. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
460 F.2d 477 p.479
1061.
Distinguished by:
Kinney v. Lenon, 447 F.2d 596, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8543 (9th Cir. Or. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
447 F.2d 596 p.603
1062.
Limited by, Cited by:
Locks v. Laird, 441 F.2d 479, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10644 (9th Cir. Cal. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
Limited by:
441 F.2d 479 p.481
Cited by:
441 F.2d 479 p.480
1063.
Cited by:
Union Oil Co. v. Minier, 437 F.2d 408, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6145, 2 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1067, 38 Oil
& Gas Rep. 556 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
437 F.2d 408 p.411
1064.
Cited by:
Union Oil Co. v. Minier, 2 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1067 (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 3, 1970)
2 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1067 p.1069
1065.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Sellers v. Regents of University of Cal., 432 F.2d 493, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7305 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
432 F.2d 493 p.506
Cited by:
432 F.2d 493 p.498
1066.
Cited by:
Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 427 F.2d 1352, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8713, 14 Fed. R. Serv.
2d (Callaghan) 217 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
427 F.2d 1352 p.1354
1067.
Cited by:
Demich, Inc. v. Ferdon, 426 F.2d 643, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9261 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970)
426 F.2d 643 p.644
426 F.2d 643 p.645
Page 143
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1068.
Distinguished by:
Zelechower v. Younger, 424 F.2d 1256, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11013 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
424 F.2d 1256 p.1259
1069.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Comstock v. United States, 419 F.2d 1128, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9779 (9th Cir. Wash. 1969)
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
419 F.2d 1128 p.1133
Cited by:
419 F.2d 1128 p.1130
1070.
Cited by:
Craycroft v. Ferrall, 408 F.2d 587, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13402 (9th Cir. Wash. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN7
408 F.2d 587 p.595
1071.
Cited by:
Lenske v. Sercombe, 401 F.2d 520, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5532 (9th Cir. Or. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
401 F.2d 520 p.521
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
1072.
Cited by:
ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52131 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52131
1073.
Cited by:
Maguire v. City of American Canyon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49095 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49095
1074.
Cited by:
Maguire v. City of American Canyon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14748 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14748
1075.
Cited by:
ABC v. Heller, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80030, 35 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1037 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80030
1076.
Cited by:
Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95388 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2006) LexisNexis
Page 144
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN7
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95388
1077.
Cited by:
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Actioin Comm. v. City of San Jose, 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 94337 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94337
1078.
Cited by:
Pauling v. McKenna, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33595 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN6
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33595
1079.
Cited by:
Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Maleng, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13533, 33 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 1017 (W.D. Wash. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
325 F. Supp. 2d 1180 p.1184
1080.
Followed by:
Bank One Del. NA v. Wilens, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27379 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27379
1081.
Cited by:
World Wide Video of Wash., Inc. v. City of Spokane, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22749
(E.D. Wash. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
227 F. Supp. 2d 1143 p.1163
1082.
Cited by:
Gritchen v. Collier, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16579, 2000 D.A.R. 2389 (C.D. Cal.
1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
73 F. Supp. 2d 1148 p.1151
1083.
Cited by:
California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully, 989 F. Supp. 1282, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62 (E.D. Cal. 1998)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
989 F. Supp. 1282 p.1289
1084.
Cited by:
California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 1998)
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78
1085.
Cited by:
On Command Video Corp. v. Lodgenet Entertainment Corp., 976 F. Supp. 917, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14773 (N.D. Cal. 1997)
976 F. Supp. 917 p.940
Page 145
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1086.
Cited by:
Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8749 (N.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
172 F.R.D. 681 p.690
1087.
Cited by:
On Command Video v. Lodgnet Entertainment Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21866 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,
1997)
1088.
Cited by:
Root v. Schenk, 953 F. Supp. 1115, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5950, 97 D.A.R. 9611 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
953 F. Supp. 1115 p.1119
1089.
Cited by:
Lee v. Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1429, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12011 (D. Or. 1995)
1090.
Cited by:
Lee v. Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1421, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14133 (D. Or. 1995)
891 F. Supp. 1421 p.1425
1091.
Cited by:
Blakeney v. Burnette, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3072 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 1995)
1092.
Cited by:
United States v. Hubbard, 856 F. Supp. 1416, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8992, 94 D.A.R. 10125 (E.D. Cal.
1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
856 F. Supp. 1416 p.1418
1093.
Cited by:
Brooks v. Southlake Mun. Court, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4478 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 1994)
1094.
Cited by:
Gallo v. California, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 662 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 1993)
1095.
Cited by:
Finley v. National Endowment for Arts, 795 F. Supp. 1457, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8070, 92 D.A.R. 7846
(C.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
795 F. Supp. 1457 p.1476
1096.
Cited by:
United States v. Broussard, 767 F. Supp. 1536, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8769 (D. Or. 1991) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9
767 F. Supp. 1536 p.1541
1097.
Cited by:
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Meese, 714 F. Supp. 1060, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1327,
11 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A3-101 (C.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 146
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
714 F. Supp. 1060 p.1069
1098.
Cited by:
Committee of Cent. American Refugees v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 682 F. Supp. 1055, 1988
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4944, 11 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A3-67 (N.D. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
682 F. Supp. 1055 p.1064
1099.
Cited by:
United States v. Kantor, 677 F. Supp. 1421, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12743 (C.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
677 F. Supp. 1421 p.1424
1100.
Cited by:
American Baptist Churches v. Meese, 666 F. Supp. 1358, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7128, 11 Immigr. Cas.
Rep. A3-57 (N.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
666 F. Supp. 1358 p.1362
1101.
Cited by:
Cenergy Corp. v. Bryson Oil & Gas P.L.C., 657 F. Supp. 867, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3052 (D. Nev. 1987)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
657 F. Supp. 867 p.872
1102.
Cited by:
IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 599 F. Supp. 1402, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20991 (D. Nev. 1984) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
599 F. Supp. 1402 p.1404
599 F. Supp. 1402 p.1406
1103.
Cited by:
Wynberg v. National Enquirer, 564 F. Supp. 924, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9989, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
2398 (C.D. Cal. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
564 F. Supp. 924 p.925
1104.
Cited by:
Lokey v. Richardson, 534 F. Supp. 1015, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11231 (N.D. Cal. 1982) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
534 F. Supp. 1015 p.1022
1105.
Cited by:
Bryan v. Kitamura, 529 F. Supp. 394, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10356 (D. Haw. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
529 F. Supp. 394 p.402
1106.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Chavez-Salido v. Cabell, 490 F. Supp. 984, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12776, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH)
P31133, 23 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 106 (C.D. Cal. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
Page 147
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
490 F. Supp. 984 p.992
1107.
Cited by:
Lewis v. Time, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 455, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9778, 5 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1790 (E.D. Cal.
1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
83 F.R.D. 455 p.464
1108.
Cited by:
Metpath, Inc. v. Myers, 462 F. Supp. 1104, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14934, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1884
(N.D. Cal. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
462 F. Supp. 1104 p.1107
1109.
Explained by:
Spokane Arcades, Inc. v. Ray, 449 F. Supp. 1145, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19713, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
1864 (E.D. Wash. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
449 F. Supp. 1145 p.1148
1110.
Cited by:
United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870 (W.D. Wash. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
459 F. Supp. 1020 p.1030
1111.
Cited by:
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18238, 98 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2197, 84 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55136 (D. Ariz. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
449 F. Supp. 449 p.455
1112.
Cited by:
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Motel, Inc., 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19678, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 360 (D.
Mont. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
1113.
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)
437 F. Supp. 201 p.213
1114.
Cited by:
Warden v. Younger, 428 F. Supp. 64, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17588 (N.D. Cal. 1977)
428 F. Supp. 64 p.67
1115.
Cited by:
Hjelle v. Brooks, 424 F. Supp. 595, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14658 (D. Alaska 1976)
424 F. Supp. 595 p.597
1116.
Cited by:
Terminal-Hudson Electronics, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 407 F. Supp. 1075, 1976 U.S. Dist.
Page 148
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LEXIS 17318 (C.D. Cal. 1976)
407 F. Supp. 1075 p.1078
1117.
Cited by:
Glines v. Wade, 401 F. Supp. 127, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12106 (N.D. Cal. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN8
401 F. Supp. 127 p.131
1118.
Cited by:
Terry v. California State Bd. of Pharmacy, 395 F. Supp. 94, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12380 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
395 F. Supp. 94 p.97
1119.
Distinguished by:
Cline v. Montana, 394 F. Supp. 803, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11904 (D. Mont. 1975)
394 F. Supp. 803 p.804
1120.
Explained by:
Inland Empire Enterprises, Inc. v. Morton, 365 F. Supp. 1014, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11302 (C.D. Cal.
1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
365 F. Supp. 1014 p.1016
1121.
Cited by:
Adamian v. University of Nevada, 359 F. Supp. 825, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14030 (D. Nev. 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
359 F. Supp. 825 p.829
1122.
Questioned by:
Powell v. Flanigan, 350 F. Supp. 125, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11205 (D. Alaska 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
350 F. Supp. 125 p.126
1123.
Distinguished by:
Anderson v. Nemetz, 332 F. Supp. 1321, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10904 (D. Ariz. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN9
332 F. Supp. 1321 p.1322
1124.
Explained by, Cited by:
Sandquist v. Pitchess, 332 F. Supp. 171, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11675 (C.D. Cal. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Explained by:
332 F. Supp. 171 p.176
Cited by:
332 F. Supp. 171 p.174
Page 149
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1125.
Cited by:
Maldonado v. County of Monterey, 330 F. Supp. 1282, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12577, 67 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
P12283 (N.D. Cal. 1971)
330 F. Supp. 1282 p.1286
1126.
Cited by:
Veen v. Davis, 326 F. Supp. 116, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13892 (C.D. Cal. 1971)
326 F. Supp. 116 p.118
326 F. Supp. 116 p.120
1127.
Cited by:
Major v. Ferdon, 325 F. Supp. 1141, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14434 (N.D. Cal. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
325 F. Supp. 1141 p.1143
1128.
Distinguished by:
Palo Alto Tenants Union v. Morgan, 321 F. Supp. 908, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9112 (N.D. Cal. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
321 F. Supp. 908 p.910
1129.
Cited by:
Hayse v. Hoomissen, 321 F. Supp. 642, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9476 (D. Or. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
321 F. Supp. 642 p.644
1130.
Cited by:
General Motors Corp. v. Burns, 316 F. Supp. 803, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10533 (D. Haw. 1970)
316 F. Supp. 803 p.807
1131.
Cited by:
Alexander v. Thompson, 313 F. Supp. 1389, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11346 (C.D. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
313 F. Supp. 1389 p.1397
1132.
Cited by:
Sunday Mail, Inc. v. Christie, 312 F. Supp. 677, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12659 (C.D. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
312 F. Supp. 677 p.679
1133.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Brockett, 312 F. Supp. 496, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12241 (E.D. Wash. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
312 F. Supp. 496 p.498
1134.
Cited by:
Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12295 (N.D. Cal. 1970) LexisNexis
Page 150
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN8
311 F. Supp. 749 p.750
1135.
Cited by:
Union P. R. Co. v. Woodahl, 308 F. Supp. 1002, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12889 (D. Mont. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
308 F. Supp. 1002 p.1013
1136.
Followed by:
Copland v. O'Connor, 306 F. Supp. 375, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8787 (N.D. Cal. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
306 F. Supp. 375 p.377
1137.
Cited by:
In re Shead, 302 F. Supp. 560, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13434 (N.D. Cal. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
302 F. Supp. 560 p.562
1138.
Distinguished by:
Locks v. Laird, 300 F. Supp. 915, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8469 (N.D. Cal. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
300 F. Supp. 915 p.917
1139.
Cited by:
Krieger v. Terry, 300 F. Supp. 242, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8403 (D. Haw. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
300 F. Supp. 242 p.247
1140.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Barrows v. Reddin, 301 F. Supp. 574, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12322 (C.D. Cal. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
301 F. Supp. 574 p.581
Cited by:
301 F. Supp. 574 p.577
1141.
Cited by:
Miller v. Reddin, 293 F. Supp. 216, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12415 (C.D. Cal. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
293 F. Supp. 216 p.230
1142.
Cited by:
Harris v. Younger, 281 F. Supp. 507, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8303 (C.D. Cal. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN4, HN9
281 F. Supp. 507 p.510
281 F. Supp. 507 p.512
Page 151
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1143.
Cited by:
Jehovah's Witnesses of Washington v. King County Hospital, 278 F. Supp. 488, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7426 (W.D. Wash. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
278 F. Supp. 488 p.506
1144.
Cited by:
Hill v. Nelson, 272 F. Supp. 790, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7112, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1511 (N.D.
Cal. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
272 F. Supp. 790 p.800
1145.
Cited by:
Thomas v. District Court of Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 270 F. Supp. 487, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8711 (D.
Mont. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11
270 F. Supp. 487 p.489
1146.
Cited by:
Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Reimel, 266 F. Supp. 168, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8374 (N.D. Cal. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
266 F. Supp. 168 p.171
1147.
Cited by:
Heckler v. Shepard, 243 F. Supp. 841, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7411 (D. Idaho 1965)
243 F. Supp. 841 p.844
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
1148.
Cited by:
Lenke v. Tischler (In re Lenke), 249 B.R. 1, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 548, 36 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 43, 44
Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 241 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
249 B.R. 1 p.12
10TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
1149.
Cited by:
Jordan v. Pugh, 425 F.3d 820, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20230, 62 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1025, 34
Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1089 (10th Cir. Colo. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9
425 F.3d 820 p.828
1150.
Cited by:
John Zink Co. v. Zink, 241 F.3d 1256, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2865, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1050, 2001
D.A.R. 1050, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1932 (10th Cir. Okla. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
241 F.3d 1256 p.1260
1151.
Cited by:
Gehl Group v. Koby, 63 F.3d 1528, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 22564 (10th Cir. Colo. 1995) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Page 152
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
63 F.3d 1528 p.1535
1152.
Followed 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 HN5, HN7
59 F.3d 1058 p.1065
1153.
Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11853 (10th Cir. Utah 1992) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN8
Followed by:
965 F.2d 848 p.853
965 F.2d 848 p.856
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
965 F.2d 848 p.862
Cited by:
965 F.2d 848 p.849
1154.
Cited by:
In re Search of Kitty's East, 905 F.2d 1367, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064 (10th Cir. Colo. 1990) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
905 F.2d 1367 p.1371
905 F.2d 1367 p.1372
1155.
Cited by:
Rankin v. Independent School Dist. No. I-3, 876 F.2d 838, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7640 (10th Cir. Okla.
1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
876 F.2d 838 p.840
1156.
Cited by:
United States v. Reedy, 845 F.2d 239, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5453 (10th Cir. Okla. 1988) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
845 F.2d 239 p.240
1157.
Cited by:
Brecheisen v. Mondragon, 833 F.2d 238, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14992 (10th Cir. N.M. 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
833 F.2d 238 p.244
1158.
Explained by:
Dolack v. Allenbrand, 548 F.2d 891, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10399 (10th Cir. Kan. 1977) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
548 F.2d 891 p.893
1159.
Cited by:
Page 153
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Harris, 490 F.2d 572, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675 (10th Cir. Okla.
1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
490 F.2d 572 p.574
1160.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Fisher v. Walker, 464 F.2d 1147, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8161, 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2654, 69 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P52932 (10th Cir. Utah 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
464 F.2d 1147 p.1158
1161.
Cited by:
Sweeten v. Sneddon, 463 F.2d 713, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8558 (10th Cir. Utah 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
463 F.2d 713 p.715
1162.
Explained by:
Tyler v. Russel, 410 F.2d 490, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12564 (10th Cir. Colo. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN5
410 F.2d 490 p.491
410 F.2d 490 p.492
1163.
Explained by:
Noyd v. McNamara, 378 F.2d 538, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6366 (10th Cir. Colo. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
378 F.2d 538 p.540
10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
1164.
Followed by:
McCormick v. Farrar, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18882 (D. Kan. Oct. 11, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18882
1165.
Cited by:
Metcalf Gifts v. City of Overland Park, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15940 (D. Kan. Oct. 6, 1994) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
1166.
Cited by:
Ruff v. City of Leavenworth, 858 F. Supp. 1546, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10722 (D. Kan. 1994)
858 F. Supp. 1546 p.1555
1167.
Cited by:
Phelps v. Hamilton, 840 F. Supp. 1442, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18622 (D. Kan. 1993) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
840 F. Supp. 1442 p.1451
840 F. Supp. 1442 p.1458
1168.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
United States v. Pottorf, 828 F. Supp. 1501, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10843 (D. Kan. 1993) LexisNexis
Page 154
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN3
Distinguished by:
828 F. Supp. 1501 p.1503
Cited by:
828 F. Supp. 1501 p.1502
1169.
Cited by:
Phelps v. Hamilton, 828 F. Supp. 831, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11028 (D. Kan. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
828 F. Supp. 831 p.839
1170.
Cited by:
American Carriers, Inc. v. Baytree Investors, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7231 (D. Kan. June 10, 1988)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
1171.
Cited by:
Gaffney v. Lawrence, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4647 (D. Kan. May 21, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1172.
Cited by:
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Denver, 567 F. Supp. 476, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15124, 9 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 2059 (D. Colo. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
567 F. Supp. 476 p.478
1173.
Cited by:
Baker v. Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, 543 F. Supp. 1177, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13738 (W.D. Okla.
1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
543 F. Supp. 1177 p.1179
1174.
Cited by:
Home Box Office, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 531 F. Supp. 987, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10920, 8 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1108 (D. Utah 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
531 F. Supp. 987 p.991
1175.
Cited by:
Sooner State News Agency, Inc. v. Fallis, 367 F. Supp. 523, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10823 (N.D. Okla.
1973)
367 F. Supp. 523 p.526
1176.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
United Artists Corp. v. Harris, 363 F. Supp. 857, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12188 (W.D. Okla. 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN4
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
363 F. Supp. 857 p.864
Cited by:
363 F. Supp. 857 p.862
Page 155
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1177.
Cited by:
Elder v. Rampton, 360 F. Supp. 559, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10652 (D. Utah 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
360 F. Supp. 559 p.563
1178.
Cited by:
Yanito v. Barber, 348 F. Supp. 587, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11924 (D. Utah 1972)
348 F. Supp. 587 p.589
1179.
Distinguished by:
Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14694, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1020 (D.
Kan. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
339 F. Supp. 986 p.996
1180.
Distinguished by:
Sims v. Board of Education, 329 F. Supp. 678, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12583, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 958 (D.N.M. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
329 F. Supp. 678 p.688
329 F. Supp. 678 p.689
1181.
Explained by, Cited by:
Davis v. Kansas, 327 F. Supp. 963, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12920 (D. Kan. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN4
Explained by:
327 F. Supp. 963 p.965
Cited by:
327 F. Supp. 963 p.966
1182.
Cited by:
Sweeten v. Sneddon, 324 F. Supp. 1094, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15174 (D. Utah 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN8
324 F. Supp. 1094 p.1099
324 F. Supp. 1094 p.1102
1183.
Distinguished by:
Gordon v. Christenson, 317 F. Supp. 146, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10247 (D. Utah 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
317 F. Supp. 146 p.149
1184.
Cited by:
Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. Field, 311 F. Supp. 1194, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12505 (W.D. Okla.
1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
311 F. Supp. 1194 p.1195
1185.
Followed by:
Brown v. Fallis, 311 F. Supp. 548, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12435 (N.D. Okla. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
Page 156
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
HN1, HN3
311 F. Supp. 548 p.551
1186.
Cited by:
Decker v. Fillis, 306 F. Supp. 613, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8811 (D. Utah 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN8
306 F. Supp. 613 p.616
1187.
Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Kansas, 304 F. Supp. 383, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10181 (D. Kan. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN4
304 F. Supp. 383 p.389
1188.
Cited by:
Goldman v. Knecht, 295 F. Supp. 897, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8351 (D. Colo. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
295 F. Supp. 897 p.901
1189.
Cited by:
United States v. Akeson, 290 F. Supp. 212, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9805 (D. Colo. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
290 F. Supp. 212 p.216
1190.
Distinguished by:
Holding v. Nesbitt, 259 F. Supp. 694, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7437 (W.D. Okla. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
259 F. Supp. 694 p.697
1191.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Midwest Video Corp. v. Campbell, 250 F. Supp. 158, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6136 (D.N.M. 1965)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN4
Distinguished by:
250 F. Supp. 158 p.163
Cited by:
250 F. Supp. 158 p.162
11TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
1192.
Cited by:
Camp Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14407, 19 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 648 (11th Cir. Ga. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
451 F.3d 1257 p.1271
1193.
Cited by:
Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20058, 18 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 968, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20188 (11th Cir. Ala. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
Page 157
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
424 F.3d 1117 p.1133
1194.
Cited by:
Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20201, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C
1093, 10 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P10-177, 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41351, 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1406 (11th Cir. Fla. 2002)
307 F.3d 1277 p.1299
1195.
Cited by:
White's Place, Inc. v. Glover, 222 F.3d 1327, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 20950, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 995
(11th Cir. Fla. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
222 F.3d 1327 p.1329
1196.
Cited by:
Bischoff v. Osceola County, 222 F.3d 874, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19838, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 973, 28
Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2121 (11th Cir. Fla. 2000)
222 F.3d 874 p.883
1197.
Cited by:
McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25372, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 425
(11th Cir. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
96 F.3d 478 p.489
1198.
Distinguished by:
Hallandale Professional Fire Fighters Local 2238 v. Hallandale, 922 F.2d 756, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS
1283 (11th Cir. Fla. 1991)
922 F.2d 756 p.760
1199.
Cited by:
Taylor v. Ft. Lauderdale, 810 F.2d 1551, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744 (11th Cir. Fla. 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN4
810 F.2d 1551 p.1554
1200.
Cited by:
Solomon v. Gainesville, 763 F.2d 1212, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30689 (11th Cir. Fla. 1985) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
763 F.2d 1212 p.1214
1201.
Cited by:
Clean-Up '84 v. Heinrich, 759 F.2d 1511, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29514 (11th Cir. Fla. 1985) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
759 F.2d 1511 p.1513
1202.
Cited by:
Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker, 670 F.2d 943, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21036 (11th Cir. Fla. 1982)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 158
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
670 F.2d 943 p.946
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
1203.
Cited by:
Jennings v. Mukasey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82465 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3, HN9
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82465
1204.
Cited by:
Dermer v. Miami-Dade County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59165 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59165
1205.
Explained by:
Grant v. Parker, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22181 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22181
1206.
Cited by:
Mancilla-Coello v. McIntosh, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84957 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84957
1207.
Cited by:
Finstad v. Fla., Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84116 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84116
1208.
Cited by:
800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Secs., Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27051 (M.D. Fla. 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
505 F. Supp. 2d 1327 p.1336
1209.
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) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
444 F. Supp. 2d 1227 p.1230
1210.
Cited by:
Beeline Entm't Partners, Ltd v. County of Orange, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2661, 16
Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 121 (M.D. Fla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
243 F. Supp. 2d 1333 p.1338
1211.
Cited by:
MacElvain v. United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16763, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6084, 29 Employee
Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1363 (M.D. Ala. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16763
Page 159
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1212.
Cited by:
Pittman v. Cole, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15560 (S.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
117 F. Supp. 2d 1285 p.1312
1213.
Cited by:
Bischoff v. Osceola County, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6376 (M.D. Fla. 1999) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
35 F. Supp. 2d 1358 p.1362
1214.
Cited by:
ACLU v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14466, 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1978, 43
U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1356 (N.D. Ga. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
977 F. Supp. 1228 p.1231
1215.
Cited by:
Bown v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 895 F. Supp. 1564, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10766 (N.D. Ga. 1995)
895 F. Supp. 1564 p.1572
1216.
Cited by:
Strang v. Satz, 866 F. Supp. 542, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14421, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 393 (S.D. Fla.
1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
866 F. Supp. 542 p.545
1217.
Cited by:
Westin v. McDaniel, 760 F. Supp. 1563, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4199 (M.D. Ga. 1991) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
760 F. Supp. 1563 p.1568
1218.
Cited by:
Skyywalker Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 739 F. Supp. 578, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6883, 17 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 2073 (S.D. Fla. 1990)
739 F. Supp. 578 p.596
1219.
Cited by:
Marshall v. Atlanta, Bureau of Services, 614 F. Supp. 581, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21835 (N.D. Ga. 1984)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6
614 F. Supp. 581 p.584
614 F. Supp. 581 p.585
1220.
Cited by:
Johnson v. Carson, 569 F. Supp. 974, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18721 (M.D. Fla. 1983) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
569 F. Supp. 974 p.977
Page 160
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1221.
Cited by:
International Union of Police Assos. v. Barrett, 524 F. Supp. 760, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15359 (N.D. Ga.
1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
524 F. Supp. 760 p.767
1222.
Cited by:
American Booksellers Asso. v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17134, 7 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 2288 (N.D. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
533 F. Supp. 50 p.55
1223.
Cited by:
Purple Onion v. Jackson, 511 F. Supp. 1207, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11396 (N.D. Ga. 1981)
511 F. Supp. 1207 p.1219
511 F. Supp. 1207 p.1223
1224.
Cited by:
Martin v. Attaway, 506 F. Supp. 603, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10511 (S.D. Ga. 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN6
506 F. Supp. 603 p.604
1225.
Cited by:
McCallum v. Hinson, 489 F. Supp. 627, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12877 (M.D. Ga. 1980)
489 F. Supp. 627 p.634
1226.
Cited by:
San Juan Liquors, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 480 F. Supp. 151, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8647 (M.D. Fla. 1979)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
480 F. Supp. 151 p.153
1227.
Cited by:
Penthouse International, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 454 F. Supp. 289, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16732 (N.D. Ga.
1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7, HN9
454 F. Supp. 289 p.297
1228.
Cited by:
Hillsboro News Co. v. Tampa, 451 F. Supp. 952, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17165 (M.D. Fla. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
451 F. Supp. 952 p.954
1229.
Cited by:
Daugherty v. East Point, 447 F. Supp. 290, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19200 (N.D. Ga. 1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
447 F. Supp. 290 p.294
1230.
Cited by:
Page 161
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Smith v. Price, 446 F. Supp. 828, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13884 (M.D. Ga. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
446 F. Supp. 828 p.835
446 F. Supp. 828 p.836
1231.
Cited by:
Penthouse International, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 436 F. Supp. 1241, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14307 (N.D. Ga.
1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN7
436 F. Supp. 1241 p.1244
1232.
Cited by:
Stecher v. Askew, 432 F. Supp. 997, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15526 (M.D. Fla. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
432 F. Supp. 997 p.1000
1233.
Cited by:
General Corp. v. Sweeton, 365 F. Supp. 1182, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11441 (N.D. Ala. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
365 F. Supp. 1182 p.1184
1234.
Explained by:
Smyl, Inc. v. Gerstein, 364 F. Supp. 1302, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11899 (S.D. Fla. 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN8
364 F. Supp. 1302 p.1306
1235.
Cited by:
Alabama Education Asso. v. Wallace, 362 F. Supp. 682, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12190 (M.D. Ala. 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
362 F. Supp. 682 p.685
1236.
Cited by:
106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (M.D. Ga. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
362 F. Supp. 1389 p.1394
1237.
Cited by:
Gilliard v. Carson, 348 F. Supp. 757, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11773 (M.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
348 F. Supp. 757 p.762
1238.
Cited by:
International Tape Mfrs. Asso. v. Gerstein, 344 F. Supp. 38, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13299, 174 U.S.P.Q.
(BNA) 198 (S.D. Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
344 F. Supp. 38 p.44
344 F. Supp. 38 p.47
Page 162
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1239.
Cited by:
Cooley v. Endictor, 340 F. Supp. 15, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11879 (N.D. Ga. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
340 F. Supp. 15 p.19
340 F. Supp. 15 p.20
1240.
Cited by:
Becker v. Thompson, 334 F. Supp. 1386, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14111 (N.D. Ga. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5, HN7
334 F. Supp. 1386 p.1389
1241.
Cited by:
Pugh v. Rainwater, 332 F. Supp. 1107, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11272 (S.D. Fla. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
332 F. Supp. 1107 p.1111
1242.
Cited by:
Berryhill v. Gibson, 331 F. Supp. 122, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11756, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1033
(M.D. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
331 F. Supp. 122 p.125
1243.
Cited by:
Alga, Inc. v. Crosland, 327 F. Supp. 1264, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12798 (M.D. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
327 F. Supp. 1264 p.1266
1244.
Cited by:
Taylor v. Alabama, 327 F. Supp. 1191, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13819 (S.D. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
327 F. Supp. 1191 p.1193
1245.
Cited by:
Engstrom v. Gallion, 326 F. Supp. 1003, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14452 (S.D. Ala. 1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
326 F. Supp. 1003 p.1004
1246.
Cited by:
Torres v. Connor, 329 F. Supp. 1025, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10615 (N.D. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
329 F. Supp. 1025 p.1027
1247.
Cited by:
Kitchen v. Crawford, 326 F. Supp. 1255, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11130 (N.D. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
326 F. Supp. 1255 p.1263
Page 163
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1248.
Cited by:
Masson v. Slaton, 320 F. Supp. 669, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9152 (N.D. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN7
320 F. Supp. 669 p.671
1249.
Cited by:
Aalto v. Gerstein, 320 F. Supp. 652, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9064 (S.D. Fla. 1970)
320 F. Supp. 652 p.654
1250.
Distinguished by:
Meyer v. Austin, 319 F. Supp. 457, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10826 (M.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
319 F. Supp. 457 p.460
1251.
Cited by:
Green v. State, 318 F. Supp. 745, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10480 (S.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
318 F. Supp. 745 p.749
1252.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
New Orleans Book Mart, Inc. v. Mitchell, 318 F. Supp. 352, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9837 (M.D. Fla. 1970)
318 F. Supp. 352 p.354
1253.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, 318 F. Supp. 244, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10544 (N.D. Ala. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
318 F. Supp. 244 p.261
Cited by:
318 F. Supp. 244 p.248
318 F. Supp. 244 p.249
1254.
Cited by:
Washington v. Garmire, 317 F. Supp. 1384, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10079 (S.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
317 F. Supp. 1384 p.1386
317 F. Supp. 1384 p.1387
1255.
Cited by:
Parducci v. Rutland, 316 F. Supp. 352, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11398 (M.D. Ala. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN10
316 F. Supp. 352 p.357
1256.
Distinguished by:
Wallace v. Brewer, 315 F. Supp. 431, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11399, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 731
(M.D. Ala. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7, HN9, HN11
Page 164
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
315 F. Supp. 431 p.443
315 F. Supp. 431 p.444
315 F. Supp. 431 p.449
315 F. Supp. 431 p.450
315 F. Supp. 431 p.451
315 F. Supp. 431 p.452
1257.
Cited by:
Eitel v. Faircloth, 311 F. Supp. 1160, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12493 (S.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
311 F. Supp. 1160 p.1163
1258.
Cited by:
Eberhart v. Massell, 311 F. Supp. 654, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12014 (N.D. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
311 F. Supp. 654 p.657
1259.
Distinguished by:
Mitchum v. McAuley, 311 F. Supp. 479, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12584 (N.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN5
311 F. Supp. 479 p.481
311 F. Supp. 479 p.483
1260.
Followed by:
Hall v. Crosland, 311 F. Supp. 106, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12390 (M.D. Ala. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
311 F. Supp. 106 p.107
1261.
Cited by:
City News Center, Inc. v. Carson, 310 F. Supp. 1018, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12730 (M.D. Fla. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
310 F. Supp. 1018 p.1023
1262.
Distinguished by, Explained by:
Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F. Supp. 993, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12921 (N.D. Ga. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
Distinguished by:
309 F. Supp. 993 p.994
Explained by:
309 F. Supp. 993 p.995
1263.
Followed by:
Livingston v. Garmire, 308 F. Supp. 472, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13180 (S.D. Fla. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
308 F. Supp. 472 p.474
Page 165
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1264.
Cited by:
Bramlett v. Peterson, 307 F. Supp. 1311, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8750 (M.D. Fla. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
307 F. Supp. 1311 p.1321
1265.
Cited by:
Entertainment Ventures, Inc. v. Brewer, 306 F. Supp. 802, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9496 (M.D. Ala. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN8
306 F. Supp. 802 p.805
306 F. Supp. 802 p.817
306 F. Supp. 802 p.820
306 F. Supp. 802 p.821
1266.
Distinguished by:
Carter v. Gautier, 305 F. Supp. 1098, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10110 (M.D. Ga. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
305 F. Supp. 1098 p.1101
305 F. Supp. 1098 p.1103
1267.
Cited by:
Sokolic v. Ryan, 304 F. Supp. 213, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12532 (S.D. Ga. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
304 F. Supp. 213 p.216
1268.
Cited by:
Wilson v. Gooding, 303 F. Supp. 952, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10369 (N.D. Ga. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
303 F. Supp. 952 p.953
1269.
Distinguished by:
Cato v. Georgia, 302 F. Supp. 1143, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9915 (N.D. Ga. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3, HN8
302 F. Supp. 1143 p.1145
302 F. Supp. 1143 p.1146
1270.
Cited by:
Lazarus v. Faircloth, 301 F. Supp. 266, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9950 (S.D. Fla. 1969)
301 F. Supp. 266 p.268
1271.
Cited by:
Broughton v. Brewer, 298 F. Supp. 260, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9508 (S.D. Ala. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN3, HN5, HN7
298 F. Supp. 260 p.269
298 F. Supp. 260 p.270
1272.
Cited by:
Brooks v. Auburn University, 296 F. Supp. 188, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13330 (M.D. Ala. 1969)
Page 166
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
296 F. Supp. 188 p.194
1273.
Cited by:
Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 295 F. Supp. 1216, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12580 (M.D. Ala. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
295 F. Supp. 1216 p.1219
1274.
Cited by:
Graham v. Brewer, 295 F. Supp. 1140, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12335 (N.D. Ala. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
295 F. Supp. 1140 p.1143
1275.
Cited by:
Johnson v. Alabama, 288 F. Supp. 655, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9439 (M.D. Ala. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
288 F. Supp. 655 p.658
1276.
Cited by:
Hunter v. Allen, 286 F. Supp. 830, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11548 (N.D. Ga. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
286 F. Supp. 830 p.835
1277.
Cited by:
Devine v. Wood, 286 F. Supp. 102, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9090 (M.D. Ala. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN5
286 F. Supp. 102 p.106
1278.
Explained by:
Dawkins v. Green, 285 F. Supp. 772, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9214, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1268
(N.D. Fla. 1968)
285 F. Supp. 772 p.773
1279.
Cited by:
Wright v. Montgomery, 282 F. Supp. 291, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8201 (M.D. Ala. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN5
282 F. Supp. 291 p.294
1280.
Cited by:
Coon v. Tingle, 277 F. Supp. 304, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11511, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9856, 9 Fair
Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1164, 57 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9114 (N.D. Ga. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
277 F. Supp. 304 p.308
1281.
Cited by:
Malone v. Emmet, 278 F. Supp. 193, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7411 (M.D. Ala. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN3
278 F. Supp. 193 p.196
Page 167
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1282.
Cited by:
Epstein v. Maddox, 277 F. Supp. 613, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11021 (N.D. Ga. 1967)
277 F. Supp. 613 p.620
1283.
Cited by:
Carmichael v. Allen, 267 F. Supp. 985, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10566 (N.D. Ga. 1966) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN4, HN7, HN9
267 F. Supp. 985 p.993
1284.
Distinguished by:
Davis v. Jury Com. of Montgomery County, 261 F. Supp. 591, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7578 (M.D. Ala.
1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
261 F. Supp. 591 p.593
1285.
Distinguished by:
Kelley v. Wallace, 257 F. Supp. 343, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6798 (M.D. Ala. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN2
257 F. Supp. 343 p.344
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
1286.
Cited by:
In re Helinger, 22 B.R. 139, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 3903 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982)
22 B.R. 139 p.143
D.C. CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
1287.
Cited by:
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 372 U.S. App. D.C. 94, 2006 U.S. App.
LEXIS 16952, 103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 171, 65 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 808 (2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
454 F.3d 290 p.301
372 U.S. App. D.C. 94 p.105
1288.
Cited by:
Miranda v. Gonzales, 173 Fed. Appx. 840, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3823 (D.C. Cir. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
173 Fed. Appx. 840 p.842
1289.
Distinguished by:
Barwood, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 202 F.3d 290, 340 U.S. App. D.C. 67, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1376
(2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
202 F.3d 290 p.294
340 U.S. App. D.C. 67 p.71
Page 168
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1290.
Cited by:
Casey v. Department of State, 980 F.2d 1472, 299 U.S. App. D.C. 29, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32951 (1992)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
980 F.2d 1472 p.1480
299 U.S. App. D.C. 29 p.37
1291.
Criticized as stated in:
American Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178, 294 U.S. App. D.C. 57, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994
(1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
1292.
Cited by:
Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 261 U.S. App. D.C. 334, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8275 (1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
822 F.2d 66 p.69
1293.
Cited by:
McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 1137, 231 U.S. App. D.C. 99, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16315 (1983)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
718 F.2d 1137 p.1146
1294.
Cited by:
Martin Tractor Co. v. Federal Election Com., 627 F.2d 375, 200 U.S. App. D.C. 322, 1980 U.S. App.
LEXIS 17771 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
627 F.2d 375 p.381
1295.
Cited by:
Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 196 U.S. App. D.C. 319, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12956, 5 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1631 (1979)
606 F.2d 1226 p.1239
1296.
Cited by:
In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176, 194 U.S. App. D.C. 257, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17478, 26 Fed. R. Serv. 2d
(Callaghan) 798, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2025 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
598 F.2d 176 p.199
1297.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Community-Service Broadcasting of Mid-America, Inc. v. FCC, 593 F.2d 1102, 192 U.S. App. D.C. 448,
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9364, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1257, 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1675 (1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
593 F.2d 1102 p.1147
1298.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 593 F.2d 1030, 192 U.S. App. D.C.
376, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9612, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1177 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN7
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
593 F.2d 1030 p.1086
Cited by:
Page 169
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
593 F.2d 1030 p.1052
593 F.2d 1030 p.1065
1299.
Cited by:
COMMUNITY-SERVICE BROADCASTING OF MID-AMERICA v. FCC, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11568, 41
Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 731 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1977)
1300.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10, 186 U.S. App. D.C. 179, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11470 (1977) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
569 F.2d 10 p.46
Cited by:
569 F.2d 10 p.15
1301.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 180 U.S. App. D.C. 101, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 5753 (1976)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN7, HN8
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
553 F.2d 1277 p.1334
Cited by:
553 F.2d 1277 p.1282
553 F.2d 1277 p.1292
1302.
Cited by:
ILLINOIS CITIZENS COMM. FOR BROADCASTING v. FCC, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15684, 33 Rad. Reg.
2d (P & F) 117 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 13, 1975)
1303.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821, 171 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13132, 75-2 U.S. Tax Cas.
(CCH) P9750 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
519 F.2d 821 p.910
Cited by:
519 F.2d 821 p.843
1304.
Cited by:
Palmore v. Superior Court of District of Columbia, 515 F.2d 1294, 169 U.S. App. D.C. 323, 1975 U.S. App.
LEXIS 13797 (1975)
515 F.2d 1294 p.1306
1305.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Carlson v. Schlesinger, 511 F.2d 1327, 167 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14961 (1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
511 F.2d 1327 p.1342
Page 170
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1306.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC, 515 F.2d 397, 169 U.S. App. D.C. 166, 1974 U.S.
App. LEXIS 5992, 31 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1523, 33 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 117 (1974)
515 F.2d 397 p.422
1307.
Cited by:
United States v. Finance Committee to Re--Elect President, 507 F.2d 1194, 165 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 1974
U.S. App. LEXIS 5852 (1974)
507 F.2d 1194 p.1200
1308.
Cited by:
Tarlton v. Saxbe, 507 F.2d 1116, 165 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6414 (1974) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
507 F.2d 1116 p.1124
1309.
Cited by:
United States Servicemen's Fund v. Eastland, 488 F.2d 1252, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 1973 U.S. App.
LEXIS 8126 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
488 F.2d 1252 p.1265
1310.
Cited by:
United States v. McSurely, 473 F.2d 1178, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 141, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6203 (1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
473 F.2d 1178 p.1190
1311.
Cited by:
Finley v. Hampton, 473 F.2d 180, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 50, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6157 (1972) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
473 F.2d 180 p.185
1312.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States v. Bland, 472 F.2d 1329, 153 U.S. App. D.C. 254, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7659 (1972)
472 F.2d 1329 p.1348
1313.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Von Sleichter v. United States, 472 F.2d 1244, 153 U.S. App. D.C. 169, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8996 (1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
472 F.2d 1244 p.1258
1314.
Cited by:
Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. Renegotiation Board, 466 F.2d 345, 151 U.S. App. D.C. 174, 1972 U.S. App.
LEXIS 8585 (1972)
466 F.2d 345 p.356
1315.
Distinguished by:
Sanders v. McClellan, 463 F.2d 894, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10015 (1972)
Page 171
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5
463 F.2d 894 p.898
463 F.2d 894 p.900
463 F.2d 894 p.901
1316.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Rodriguez v. Seamans, 463 F.2d 837, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10345 (1972)
463 F.2d 837 p.851
1317.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Tatum v. Laird, 444 F.2d 947, 144 U.S. App. D.C. 72, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10544 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
444 F.2d 947 p.961
Cited by:
444 F.2d 947 p.953
444 F.2d 947 p.955
1318.
Distinguished by:
Davis v. Ichord, 442 F.2d 1207, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 183, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7639 (1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
442 F.2d 1207 p.1215
1319.
Cited by:
Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F.2d 486, 139 U.S. App. D.C. 113, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8608 (1970)
430 F.2d 486 p.494
1320.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Washington Free Community, Inc. v. Wilson, 426 F.2d 1213, 138 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1969 U.S. App.
LEXIS 9629 (1969)
426 F.2d 1213 p.1218
1321.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Jeannette Rankin Brigade v. Chief of Capitol Police, 421 F.2d 1090, 137 U.S. App. D.C. 155, 1969 U.S.
App. LEXIS 11848 (1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN11
421 F.2d 1090 p.1100
421 F.2d 1090 p.1101
421 F.2d 1090 p.1107
1322.
Cited by:
National Student Asso. v. Hershey, 412 F.2d 1103, 134 U.S. App. D.C. 56, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12067
(1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
412 F.2d 1103 p.1110
412 F.2d 1103 p.1112
412 F.2d 1103 p.1119
Page 172
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1323.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Levy v. Corcoran, 389 F.2d 929, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 388, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6453 (1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN8
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
389 F.2d 929 p.932
Cited by:
389 F.2d 929 p.931
1324.
Cited by:
Overseas Media Corp. v. McNamara, 385 F.2d 308, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 48, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4982
(1967)
385 F.2d 308 p.315
1325.
Cited by:
Dombrowski v. Burbank, 358 F.2d 821, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 190, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7275 (1966)
1326.
Cited by:
Reed Enterprises v. Corcoran, 354 F.2d 519, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 387, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3801 (1965)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
354 F.2d 519 p.522
D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURT
1327.
Cited by:
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia, 570 F. Supp. 2d 72, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 61233 (D.D.C. 2008)
570 F. Supp. 2d 72 p.75
1328.
Cited by:
Recording Indus. of Am. v. Verizon Internet Servs. (In re Verizon Internet Servs.), 257 F. Supp. 2d 244,
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6778 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
257 F. Supp. 2d 244 p.257
1329.
Cited by:
Pearson v. McCaffrey, 139 F. Supp. 2d 113, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5563 (D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
139 F. Supp. 2d 113 p.118
1330.
Cited by:
Barwood, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21427 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 1999) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21427
1331.
Cited by:
Ghent v. United States DOJ, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 673 (D.D.C. Jan. 14, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN10
Page 173
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1332.
Followed by:
Scolaro v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 946 F. Supp. 80, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17972
(D.D.C. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
946 F. Supp. 80 p.83
1333.
Followed by, Cited by:
PHE, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Justice, 743 F. Supp. 15, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9097 (D.D.C. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5
Followed by:
743 F. Supp. 15 p.21
743 F. Supp. 15 p.22
743 F. Supp. 15 p.26
Cited by:
743 F. Supp. 15 p.25
1334.
Cited by:
Lattimore v. Northwest Coop. Homes Ass'n, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3285 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
1335.
Cited by:
Mahoney, v. District of Columbia, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
1336.
Cited by:
Waters v. Barry, 711 F. Supp. 1125, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5707 (D.D.C. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
711 F. Supp. 1125 p.1129
1337.
Cited by:
American Library Ass'n v. Thornburgh, 713 F. Supp. 469, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5399 (D.D.C. 1989)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
713 F. Supp. 469 p.482
1338.
Cited by:
Freedberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 703 F. Supp. 107, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15162 (D.D.C. 1988)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
703 F. Supp. 107 p.112
1339.
Cited by:
Nelson v. International Asso. of Bridge, etc., 680 F. Supp. 16, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1572, 131 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2025, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10464 (D.D.C. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
680 F. Supp. 16 p.24
1340.
Cited by:
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Meese, 639 F. Supp. 581, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23238, 13 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 1101 (D.D.C. 1986)
639 F. Supp. 581 p.586
Page 174
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1341.
Cited by:
Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 429 F. Supp. 167, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17594, 2 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
1289 (D.D.C. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
429 F. Supp. 167 p.179
1342.
Cited by:
Bradley v. Saxbe, 388 F. Supp. 53, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11529 (D.D.C. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
388 F. Supp. 53 p.55
1343.
Cited by:
Police Officers' Guild, etc. v. Washington, 369 F. Supp. 543, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10504, 85 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2203, 72 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P53214 (D.D.C. 1973)
369 F. Supp. 543 p.547
1344.
Cited by:
Dash v. Mitchell, 356 F. Supp. 1292, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15200 (D.D.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
356 F. Supp. 1292 p.1299
1345.
Cited by:
Stolte v. Laird, 353 F. Supp. 1392, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10567 (D.D.C. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
353 F. Supp. 1392 p.1399
1346.
Cited by:
National Asso. of Letter Carriers v. Blount, 305 F. Supp. 546, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9631, 72 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 2591, 61 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10449, 23 A.L.R. Fed. 684 (D.D.C. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
305 F. Supp. 546 p.549
1347.
Cited by:
United States v. Jeffries, 45 F.R.D. 110, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12791 (D.D.C. 1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
45 F.R.D. 110 p.116
1348.
Cited by:
Reed Enterprises v. Clark, 278 F. Supp. 372, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9247 (D.D.C. 1967) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN8
278 F. Supp. 372 p.376
278 F. Supp. 372 p.381
1349.
Cited by:
W. E. B. Du Bois Clubs v. Katzenbach, 277 F. Supp. 971, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7520 (D.D.C. 1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN9
277 F. Supp. 971 p.972
Page 175
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
CT. OF APP. FOR THE ARMED FORCES/CT. OF MIL. APP.
1350.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States v. Fischer, 60 M.J. 650, 2004 CCA LEXIS 143 (N-M.C.C.A. 2004)
60 M.J. 650 p.654
1351.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
United States v. Burgess, 2003 CCA LEXIS 204 (N-M.C.C.A. Aug. 29, 2003)
2003 CCA LEXIS 204
1352.
Cited by:
United States v. Reed, 24 M.J. 80, 1987 CMA LEXIS 822 (C.M.A. 1987)
24 M.J. 80 p.85
CT. OF CRIMINAL APPEALS/CT. OF MIL. REVIEW
1353.
Cited by:
United States v. Jackson, 2 M.J. 987, 1976 CMR LEXIS 726 (A.C.M.R. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2 M.J. 987 p.990
1354.
Cited by:
United States v. Sweney, 48 C.M.R. 476, 1974 CMR LEXIS 839 (A.C.M.R. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
OTHER FEDERAL DECISIONS
1355.
Cited by:
U.S. Dist. Dkt. No. S-96-1965LKK/DAD
U.S. Dist. Dkt. No. S-96-1965LKK/DAD
1356.
Cited by:
122 F.R.D. 89, 122 F.R.D. 89
122 F.R.D. 89 p.94
1357.
Cited by:
18 F.C.C.2d 124, 18 F.C.C.2d 124, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 69-537, 16 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 207
18 F.C.C.2d 124 p.149
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
1358.
Cited by:
State v. Worley, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 152 (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2009)
2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 152
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
Page 176
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1359.
Cited by:
Holton v. State, 602 P.2d 1228, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 687, Alaska Adv. 1967 (Alaska 1979) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
602 P.2d 1228 p.1234
1360.
Cited by:
Powell v. Anchorage, 536 P.2d 1228, 1973 Alas. LEXIS 309, Alaska Adv. 1167 (Alaska 1973) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
536 P.2d 1228 p.1231
1361.
Cited by:
Hanby v. State, 479 P.2d 486, 1970 Alas. LEXIS 183, Alaska Adv. 662 (Alaska 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN10
479 P.2d 486 p.490
1362.
Cited by:
Watts v. Seward Sch. Bd., 421 P.2d 586, 1966 Alas. LEXIS 167, Alaska Adv. 380 (Alaska 1966)
421 P.2d 586 p.606
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
1363.
Cited by:
State v. B Bar Enters., 133 Ariz. 99, 649 P.2d 978, 1982 Ariz. LEXIS 230 (Ariz. 1982) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
133 Ariz. 99 p.103
649 P.2d 978 p.982
1364.
Cited by:
State v. Gates, 118 Ariz. 357, 576 P.2d 1357, 1978 Ariz. LEXIS 182 (Ariz. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN9
118 Ariz. 357 p.361
576 P.2d 1357 p.1361
1365.
Cited by:
State v. Powers, 117 Ariz. 220, 571 P.2d 1016, 1977 Ariz. LEXIS 354 (Ariz. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
117 Ariz. 220 p.225
571 P.2d 1016 p.1021
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
1366.
Cited by:
State v. Duran, 118 Ariz. 239, 575 P.2d 1265, 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 403 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
118 Ariz. 239 p.244
575 P.2d 1265 p.1270
Page 177
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
1367.
Cited by:
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277, 929 P.2d 596, 1997 Cal. LEXIS 33,
97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 724, 97 D.A.R. 1023 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
14 Cal. 4th 1090 p.1114
60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277 p.292
929 P.2d 596 p.611
1368.
Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., 11 Cal. 4th 607, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108, 905 P.2d 1248, 1995 Cal. LEXIS
6792, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9049, 95 D.A.R. 15816 (1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN6,
HN7
Followed by:
11 Cal. 4th 607 p.624
47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 p.118
905 P.2d 1248 p.1258
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
11 Cal. 4th 607 p.683
47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 p.158
905 P.2d 1248 p.1298
Cited by:
11 Cal. 4th 607 p.621
11 Cal. 4th 607 p.622
47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 p.115
47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 p.116
905 P.2d 1248 p.1255
905 P.2d 1248 p.1257
1369.
Cited by:
Sundance v. Municipal Court, 42 Cal. 3d 1101, 232 Cal. Rptr. 814, 729 P.2d 80, 1986 Cal. LEXIS 304
(1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
42 Cal. 3d 1101 p.1136
232 Cal. Rptr. 814 p.836
729 P.2d 80 p.102
1370.
Cited by:
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 244, 208 Cal. Rptr. 137, 690 P.2d 610, 1984 Cal.
LEXIS 125, 11 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1065 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
37 Cal. 3d 244 p.251
208 Cal. Rptr. 137 p.140
690 P.2d 610 p.613
1371.
Cited by:
Good Government Group, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 22 Cal. 3d 672, 150 Cal. Rptr. 258,
586 P.2d 572, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 310, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2082 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
22 Cal. 3d 672 p.685
150 Cal. Rptr. 258 p.264
586 P.2d 572 p.578
Page 178
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1372.
Cited by:
People v. Fogelson, 21 Cal. 3d 158, 145 Cal. Rptr. 542, 577 P.2d 677, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 219 (1978)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
145 Cal. Rptr. 542 p.545
577 P.2d 677 p.680
1373.
Cited by:
Van Nuys Publishing Co. v. Thousand Oaks, 5 Cal. 3d 817, 97 Cal. Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809, 1971 Cal.
LEXIS 287, 3 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1178 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
5 Cal. 3d 817 p.821
97 Cal. Rptr. 777 p.779
489 P.2d 809 p.811
1374.
Cited by:
Monroe v. Trustees of California State Colleges, 6 Cal. 3d 399, 99 Cal. Rptr. 129, 491 P.2d 1105, 1971 Cal.
LEXIS 228 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
6 Cal. 3d 399 p.411
99 Cal. Rptr. 129 p.137
491 P.2d 1105 p.1113
1375.
Cited by:
In re Cox, 3 Cal. 3d 205, 90 Cal. Rptr. 24, 474 P.2d 992, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 201 (1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
3 Cal. 3d 205 p.224
90 Cal. Rptr. 24 p.36
474 P.2d 992 p.1004
1376.
Cited by:
In re Kay, 1 Cal. 3d 930, 83 Cal. Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 362 (1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
1 Cal. 3d 930 p.941
83 Cal. Rptr. 686 p.693
464 P.2d 142 p.149
1377.
Cited by:
Endler v. Schutzbank, 68 Cal. 2d 162, 65 Cal. Rptr. 297, 436 P.2d 297, 1968 Cal. LEXIS 153 (1968)
68 Cal. 2d 162 p.177
65 Cal. Rptr. 297 p.307
436 P.2d 297 p.307
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
1378.
Cited by:
Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350, 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 402, 2005 Cal. Daily
Op. Service 2561, 2005 D.A.R. 3489 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
127 Cal. App. 4th 1006 p.1016
26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350 p.358
Page 179
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1379.
Cited by:
People v. Gudger, 29 Cal. App. 4th 310, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510, 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1055, 94 Cal. Daily
Op. Service 7952, 94 D.A.R. 14685 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
29 Cal. App. 4th 310 p.317
34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 p.514
1380.
Cited by:
In re Andre P., 226 Cal. App. 3d 1164, 277 Cal. Rptr. 363, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 33, 91 Cal. Daily Op.
Service 540, 91 D.A.R. 687 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
226 Cal. App. 3d 1164 p.1171
277 Cal. Rptr. 363 p.366
1381.
Cited by:
Ketchens v. Reiner, 194 Cal. App. 3d 470, 239 Cal. Rptr. 549, 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2057 (Cal. App. 2d
Dist. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
194 Cal. App. 3d 470 p.476
239 Cal. Rptr. 549 p.552
1382.
Cited by:
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 3d 961, 234 Cal. Rptr. 702, 1987 Cal. App.
LEXIS 1423, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2281 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1987)
189 Cal. App. 3d 961 p.967
234 Cal. Rptr. 702 p.704
234 Cal. Rptr. 702 p.705
1383.
Cited by:
In re Marriage of Siller, 187 Cal. App. 3d 36, 231 Cal. Rptr. 757, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2232 (Cal. App.
3d Dist. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
187 Cal. App. 3d 36 p.49
231 Cal. Rptr. 757 p.765
1384.
Cited by:
Gonzales v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. App. 3d 1116, 226 Cal. Rptr. 164, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1580 (Cal.
App. 2d Dist. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
180 Cal. App. 3d 1116 p.1121
226 Cal. Rptr. 164 p.166
1385.
Cited by:
Ramey v. Murphy, 165 Cal. App. 3d 502, 212 Cal. Rptr. 14, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1740 (Cal. App. 1st
Dist. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
165 Cal. App. 3d 502 p.507
212 Cal. Rptr. 14 p.17
1386.
Cited by:
In re Williams, 159 Cal. App. 3d 600, 205 Cal. Rptr. 903, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2454 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.
1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Page 180
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
159 Cal. App. 3d 600 p.603
205 Cal. Rptr. 903 p.905
1387.
Cited by:
Osmond v. EWAP Inc., 153 Cal. App. 3d 842, 200 Cal. Rptr. 674, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1830 (Cal. App.
2d Dist. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
153 Cal. App. 3d 842 p.854
200 Cal. Rptr. 674 p.681
1388.
Cited by:
American Booksellers Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 3d 197, 181 Cal. Rptr. 33, 1982 Cal.
App. LEXIS 1315, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2014 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
129 Cal. App. 3d 197 p.206
181 Cal. Rptr. 33 p.39
1389.
Cited by:
Hillman v. Britton, 111 Cal. App. 3d 810, 168 Cal. Rptr. 852, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2408 (Cal. App. 5th
Dist. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
111 Cal. App. 3d 810 p.815
168 Cal. Rptr. 852 p.856
1390.
Cited by:
Chambers v. Municipal Court, 65 Cal. App. 3d 904, 135 Cal. Rptr. 695, 1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1099 (Cal.
App. 1st Dist. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
65 Cal. App. 3d 904 p.912
135 Cal. Rptr. 695 p.699
1391.
Cited by:
Moore v. Younger, 54 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 127 Cal. Rptr. 171, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1208 (Cal. App. 2d
Dist. 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
54 Cal. App. 3d 1122 p.1126
127 Cal. Rptr. 171 p.173
1392.
Cited by:
People v. Baldwin, 37 Cal. App. 3d 385, 112 Cal. Rptr. 290, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1140 (Cal. App. 4th
Dist. 1974)
37 Cal. App. 3d 385 p.390
112 Cal. Rptr. 290 p.293
1393.
Cited by:
Younger v. Smith, 30 Cal. App. 3d 138, 106 Cal. Rptr. 225, 1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1264 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.
1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1394.
Cited by:
Younger v. Smith, 30 Cal. App. 3d 138, 106 Cal. Rptr. 225, 1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1146 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.
1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1395.
Cited by:
Page 181
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Younger v. Smith, 30 Cal. App. 3d 138, 106 Cal. Rptr. 225, 1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1146, 1973 Cal. App.
LEXIS 1264 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973)
30 Cal. App. 3d 138 p.165
106 Cal. Rptr. 225 p.243
1396.
Cited by:
Alford v. Municipal Court, 26 Cal. App. 3d 244, 102 Cal. Rptr. 667, 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 938 (Cal. App.
3d Dist. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
26 Cal. App. 3d 244 p.247
102 Cal. Rptr. 667 p.669
1397.
Cited by:
Belli v. Curtis Pub. Co., 25 Cal. App. 3d 384, 102 Cal. Rptr. 122, 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040 (Cal. App.
1st Dist. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
25 Cal. App. 3d 384 p.389
102 Cal. Rptr. 122 p.125
1398.
Cited by:
Simpson v. Municipal Court, 14 Cal. App. 3d 591, 92 Cal. Rptr. 417, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1021 (Cal.
App. 3d Dist. 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
14 Cal. App. 3d 591 p.600
92 Cal. Rptr. 417 p.423
1399.
Cited by:
Davis v. Justice Court, 10 Cal. App. 3d 1002, 89 Cal. Rptr. 409, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1910 (Cal. App. 1st
Dist. 1970)
10 Cal. App. 3d 1002 p.1011
89 Cal. Rptr. 409 p.414
1400.
Cited by:
Castro v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. App. 3d 675, 88 Cal. Rptr. 500, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1985 (Cal. App. 2d
Dist. 1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
9 Cal. App. 3d 675 p.683
88 Cal. Rptr. 500 p.507
1401.
Cited by:
Pitchess v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2 Cal. App. 3d 644, 83 Cal. Rptr. 35, 1969 Cal. App.
LEXIS 1451 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1969) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
2 Cal. App. 3d 644 p.649
83 Cal. Rptr. 35 p.38
OTHER CALIFORNIA DECISIONS
1402.
Cited by:
People v. Adler, 25 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 24, 101 Cal. Rptr. 726, 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1108 (Cal. App.
Dep't Super. Ct. 1972)
25 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 24 p.49
101 Cal. Rptr. 726 p.742
Page 182
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
1403.
Cited by:
Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648, 1982 Colo. LEXIS 650 (Colo. 1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1,
HN7
648 P.2d 648 p.652
1404.
Cited by:
People v. Sequin, 199 Colo. 381, 609 P.2d 622, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 583 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
199 Colo. 381 p.384
609 P.2d 622 p.624
1405.
Cited by:
People v. Stage, 195 Colo. 110, 575 P.2d 423, 1978 Colo. LEXIS 688 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
195 Colo. 110 p.113
575 P.2d 423 p.425
1406.
Cited by:
People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385, 1975 Colo. LEXIS 895 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
190 Colo. 95 p.102
544 P.2d 385 p.390
CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT
1407.
Cited by:
State v. Ehlers, 252 Conn. 579, 750 A.2d 1079, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 91 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
252 Conn. 579 p.592
750 A.2d 1079 p.1087
1408.
Cited by:
State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 640 A.2d 986, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 86 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN6
228 Conn. 795 p.813
640 A.2d 986 p.996
1409.
Cited by:
State v. Proto, 203 Conn. 682, 526 A.2d 1297, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 865 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
203 Conn. 682 p.698
526 A.2d 1297 p.1305
OTHER CONNECTICUT DECISIONS
1410.
Cited by:
State v. Culmo, 43 Conn. Supp. 46, 642 A.2d 90, 1993 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3492 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
43 Conn. Supp. 46 p.72
Page 183
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
642 A.2d 90 p.103
1411.
Cited by:
State v. Anonymous, 34 Conn. Supp. 689, 389 A.2d 1270, 1978 Conn. Super. LEXIS 172 (Conn. Super. Ct.
1978)
34 Conn. Supp. 689 p.695
389 A.2d 1270 p.1273
OTHER DELAWARE DECISIONS
1412.
Cited by:
United Video Concepts v. City of Dover, 1994 Del. Super. LEXIS 498 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 1994)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
1413.
Cited by:
American Paving Co. v. Director of Revenue, 377 A.2d 379, 1977 Del. Super. LEXIS 116 (Del. Super. Ct.
1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
377 A.2d 379 p.381
D.C. COURT OF APPEALS
1414.
Cited by:
District of Columbia v. B.J.R., 332 A.2d 58, 1975 D.C. App. LEXIS 317 (D.C. 1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
332 A.2d 58 p.63
1415.
Cited by:
Harris v. United States, 315 A.2d 569, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 363 (D.C. 1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
315 A.2d 569 p.575
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
1416.
Cited by:
State v. Saiez, 489 So. 2d 1125, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2234, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 262 (Fla. 1986)
489 So. 2d 1125 p.1126
1417.
Cited by:
Griffin v. State, 396 So. 2d 152, 1981 Fla. LEXIS 2596, 21 A.L.R.4th 225 (Fla. 1981) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
396 So. 2d 152 p.155
1418.
Cited by:
State v. Ashcraft, 378 So. 2d 284, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4928 (Fla. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
378 So. 2d 284 p.285
1419.
Cited by:
Page 184
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
State v. Keaton, 371 So. 2d 86, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4671 (Fla. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
371 So. 2d 86 p.88
1420.
Cited by:
Pace v. State, 368 So. 2d 340, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4549 (Fla. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
368 So. 2d 340 p.342
1421.
Cited by:
S.H.B. v. State, 355 So. 2d 1176, 1977 Fla. LEXIS 4078 (Fla. 1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
355 So. 2d 1176 p.1181
1422.
Cited by:
State v. Mayhew, 288 So. 2d 243, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 3990 (Fla. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1423.
Cited by:
St. Petersburg v. Waller, 261 So. 2d 151, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3789 (Fla. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
261 So. 2d 151 p.154
FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
1424.
Cited by:
State v. Montas, 993 So. 2d 1127, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16563, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 2560 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 5th Dist. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
993 So. 2d 1127 p.1130
1425.
Cited by:
State v. De La Llana, 693 So. 2d 1075, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5389, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D 1248 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
693 So. 2d 1075 p.1078
1426.
Cited by:
Easy Way, Inc. v. Lee County, 674 So. 2d 863, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5320, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 1234 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
674 So. 2d 863 p.866
1427.
Cited by:
Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 382 So. 2d 347, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16400, 5 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 2673 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
382 So. 2d 347 p.349
1428.
Cited by:
Waller v. St. Petersburg, 245 So. 2d 685, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
245 So. 2d 685 p.686
1429.
Cited by:
Page 185
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Mitchum v. State, 237 So. 2d 72, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
237 So. 2d 72 p.75
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
1430.
Cited by:
State v. Miller, 260 Ga. 669, 398 S.E.2d 547, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 459, 59 U.S.L.W. 2374 (1990) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
260 Ga. 669 p.673
398 S.E.2d 547 p.551
GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS
1431.
Cited by:
Hill v. General Finance Corp., 144 Ga. App. 434, 241 S.E.2d 282, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2723 (1977)
144 Ga. App. 434 p.438
241 S.E.2d 282 p.286
HAWAI'I SUPREME COURT
1432.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Kahaikupuna v. State, 109 Haw. 230, 124 P.3d 975, 2005 Haw. LEXIS 630 (Haw. 2005)
109 Haw. 230 p.238
124 P.3d 975 p.983
1433.
Cited by:
State v. Manzo, 58 Haw. 440, 573 P.2d 945, 1977 Haw. LEXIS 139, 3 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1660 (Haw.
1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
58 Haw. 440 p.461
573 P.2d 945 p.958
1434.
Cited by:
State v. Miller, 54 Haw. 1, 501 P.2d 363, 1972 Haw. LEXIS 86 (Haw. 1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
54 Haw. 1 p.8
501 P.2d 363 p.368
IDAHO COURT OF APPEALS
1435.
Cited by:
State v. Wees, 138 Idaho 119, 58 P.3d 103, 2002 Ida. App. LEXIS 92 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
138 Idaho 119 p.122
58 P.3d 103 p.106
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
1436.
Cited by:
Page 186
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 604 N.E.2d 275, 1992 Ill. LEXIS 121, 178 Ill. Dec. 19 (1992) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
152 Ill. 2d 41 p.81
604 N.E.2d 275 p.293
178 Ill. Dec. 19 p.37
1437.
Cited by:
People v. Holder, 96 Ill. 2d 444, 451 N.E.2d 831, 1983 Ill. LEXIS 398, 71 Ill. Dec. 677, 100 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P55449 (1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
96 Ill. 2d 444 p.449
451 N.E.2d 831 p.833
1438.
Cited by:
People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill. 2d 191, 414 N.E.2d 731, 1980 Ill. LEXIS 447, 46 Ill. Dec. 678 (1980)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
83 Ill. 2d 191 p.207
414 N.E.2d 731 p.738
1439.
Cited by:
People v. Garrison, 82 Ill. 2d 444, 412 N.E.2d 483, 1980 Ill. LEXIS 429, 45 Ill. Dec. 132 (1980)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
82 Ill. 2d 444 p.454
412 N.E.2d 483 p.489
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
1440.
Cited by:
Worth v. Watson, 233 Ill. App. 3d 974, 599 N.E.2d 967, 1992 Ill. App. LEXIS 920, 174 Ill. Dec. 883 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
233 Ill. App. 3d 974 p.981
599 N.E.2d 967 p.972
174 Ill. Dec. 883 p.888
1441.
Cited by:
People v. McGeorge, 156 Ill. App. 3d 860, 510 N.E.2d 1032, 1987 Ill. App. LEXIS 2647, 110 Ill. Dec. 1
(Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1987)
156 Ill. App. 3d 860 p.868
510 N.E.2d 1032 p.1037
1442.
Cited by:
Easter Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Com., 114 Ill. App. 3d 855, 449 N.E.2d 1013, 1983 Ill.
App. LEXIS 1808, 70 Ill. Dec. 666 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
114 Ill. App. 3d 855 p.859
449 N.E.2d 1013 p.1017
1443.
Cited by:
People v. Lenhart, 90 Ill. App. 3d 502, 413 N.E.2d 220, 1980 Ill. App. LEXIS 4255, 45 Ill. Dec. 887 (Ill.
App. Ct. 3d Dist. 1980)
Page 187
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
90 Ill. App. 3d 502 p.505
413 N.E.2d 220 p.223
1444.
Cited by:
Bart v. State Dep't of Law Enforcement, Div. of State Police, 52 Ill. App. 3d 487, 367 N.E.2d 773, 1977 Ill.
App. LEXIS 3316, 10 Ill. Dec. 320 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1977)
52 Ill. App. 3d 487 p.492
367 N.E.2d 773 p.777
1445.
Cited by:
People v. Fort, 133 Ill. App. 2d 473, 273 N.E.2d 439, 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1732 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist.
1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
133 Ill. App. 2d 473 p.484
273 N.E.2d 439 p.447
1446.
Cited by:
People v. Jackson, 132 Ill. App. 2d 1059, 271 N.E.2d 673, 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1627 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th
Dist. 1971)
132 Ill. App. 2d 1059 p.1066
271 N.E.2d 673 p.678
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
1447.
Cited by:
Grody v. State, 257 Ind. 651, 278 N.E.2d 280, 1972 Ind. LEXIS 644 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
257 Ind. 651 p.653
278 N.E.2d 280 p.282
IOWA SUPREME COURT
1448.
Followed by:
State v. Milner, 571 N.W.2d 7, 1997 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 279 (Iowa 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
571 N.W.2d 7 p.13
1449.
Cited by:
State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 348, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1003 (Iowa 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
242 N.W.2d 348 p.361
1450.
Cited by:
State v. Williams, 238 N.W.2d 302, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1087 (Iowa 1976) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
238 N.W.2d 302 p.306
1451.
Cited by:
State v. Farrell, 209 N.W.2d 103, 1973 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1081 (Iowa 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
209 N.W.2d 103 p.108
Page 188
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
1452.
Cited by:
State v. Allen, 1 Kan. App. 2d 32, 562 P.2d 445, 1977 Kan. App. LEXIS 130 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
1 Kan. App. 2d 32 p.42
562 P.2d 445 p.452
KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT
1453.
Cited by:
Purcell v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 382, 2004 Ky. LEXIS 286 (Ky. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
149 S.W.3d 382 p.390
1454.
Cited by:
Varble v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 246, 2004 Ky. LEXIS 9 (Ky. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
125 S.W.3d 246 p.256
1455.
Cited by:
Martin v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 38, 2003 Ky. LEXIS 8 (Ky. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1,
HN3, HN6
96 S.W.3d 38 p.50
KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS
1456.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Martin, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 135 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2000)
2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 135
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
1457.
Cited by:
In re Warner, 2009 La. LEXIS 1054 (La. Apr. 17, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2009 La. LEXIS 1054
1458.
Cited by:
In re Matter Under Investigation Grand Jury No. 1, La. 04-0672, 875 So. 2d 33, 2004 La. LEXIS 1666 (La.
May 14, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
875 So. 2d 33 p.36
1459.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, La. 94-0695, 654 So. 2d 1311, 1995 La. LEXIS 1142 (La. Apr. 28, 1995)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
654 So. 2d 1311 p.1342
1460.
Cited by:
Board of Comm'rs v. Connick, La. 94-3161, 654 So. 2d 1073, 1995 La. LEXIS 663 (La. Mar. 9, 1995)
Page 189
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
654 So. 2d 1073 p.1078
1461.
Cited by:
State v. Schirmer, La. 93-2631, 646 So. 2d 890, 1994 La. LEXIS 2885 (La. Nov. 30, 1994) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
646 So. 2d 890 p.900
1462.
Cited by:
Plaquemines Parish Com. Council v. Perez, 379 So. 2d 1373, 1980 La. LEXIS 8161 (La. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
379 So. 2d 1373 p.1384
1463.
Cited by:
State v. Newton, 328 So. 2d 110, 1975 La. LEXIS 4368 (La. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
328 So. 2d 110 p.113
1464.
Cited by:
State v. Douglas, 278 So. 2d 485, 1973 La. LEXIS 5944 (La. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
278 So. 2d 485 p.487
1465.
Cited by:
Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain, 263 LA. 488, 268 So. 2d 629, 1972 La. LEXIS 5848
(1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1466.
Cited by:
Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain, 263 LA. 488, 268 So. 2d 629, 1972 La. LEXIS 5433,
1972 La. LEXIS 5848 (1972)
263 LA. 488 p.510
268 So. 2d 629 p.638
1467.
Cited by:
State v. Adams, 263 LA. 286, 268 So. 2d 228, 1972 La. LEXIS 5410 (1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
263 LA. 286 p.289
268 So. 2d 228 p.229
LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS
1468.
Cited by:
Sassone v. Elder, 601 So. 2d 792, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1724 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992)
601 So. 2d 792 p.795
1469.
Cited by:
Natchitoches v. State, 221 So. 2d 534, 1969 La. App. LEXIS 5070 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
221 So. 2d 534 p.547
Page 190
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
1470.
Cited by:
In re Heather C., 2000 ME 99, 751 A.2d 448, 2000 Me. LEXIS 108 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2000 ME 99
751 A.2d 448 p.454
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS
1471.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Galloway v. State, 365 Md. 599, 781 A.2d 851, 2001 Md. LEXIS 615 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
365 Md. 599 p.658
781 A.2d 851 p.886
1472.
Cited by:
State v. Lundquist, 262 Md. 534, 278 A.2d 263, 1971 Md. LEXIS 951 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
262 Md. 534 p.540
278 A.2d 263 p.267
MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
1473.
Cited by:
Bancroft Information Group, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 91 Md. App. 100, 603 A.2d 1289, 1992 Md.
App. LEXIS 66, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1016 (1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
91 Md. App. 100 p.108
603 A.2d 1289 p.1293
1474.
Cited by:
Joseph H. Munson Co. v. Secretary of State, 48 Md. App. 273, 426 A.2d 985, 1981 Md. App. LEXIS 242
(1981)
48 Md. App. 273 p.279
426 A.2d 985 p.989
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
1475.
Cited by:
Benefit v. City of Cambridge, 424 Mass. 918, 679 N.E.2d 184, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 108 (1997) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
424 Mass. 918 p.921
679 N.E.2d 184 p.187
1476.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Bohmer, 374 Mass. 368, 372 N.E.2d 1381, 1978 Mass. LEXIS 854 (1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
374 Mass. 368 p.374
372 N.E.2d 1381 p.1386
Page 191
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1477.
Cited by:
Opinion of Justices to House of Representatives, 368 Mass. 849, 332 N.E.2d 896, 1975 Mass. LEXIS 1103
(1975)
368 Mass. 849 p.852
332 N.E.2d 896 p.898
1478.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 334 N.E.2d 617, 1975 Mass. LEXIS 1024 (1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
368 Mass. 580 p.586
334 N.E.2d 617 p.622
1479.
Cited by:
In re Pappas, 358 Mass. 604, 266 N.E.2d 297, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 895 (1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
358 Mass. 604 p.608
266 N.E.2d 297 p.300
1480.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Baird, 355 Mass. 746, 247 N.E.2d 574, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 870 (1969) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
355 Mass. 746 p.761
247 N.E.2d 574 p.583
MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
1481.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Commonwealth v. Abramms, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 576, 849 N.E.2d 867, 2006 Mass. App. LEXIS 679 (2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
66 Mass. App. Ct. 576 p.593
849 N.E.2d 867 p.881
1482.
Cited by:
Dunigan Enterprises, Inc. v. District Attorney for Northern Dist., 11 Mass. App. Ct. 254, 415 N.E.2d 251,
1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 899 (1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
11 Mass. App. Ct. 254 p.260
415 N.E.2d 251 p.255
OTHER MASSACHUSETTS DECISIONS
1483.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Gazzola, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 28, 17 Mass. L. Rep. 308 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
17 Mass. L. Rep. 308 p.308
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
1484.
Cited by:
In re Chmura, 461 Mich. 517, 608 N.W.2d 31, 2000 Mich. LEXIS 567 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 192
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
461 Mich. 517 p.530
608 N.W.2d 31 p.38
1485.
Cited by:
Woll v. Kelley, 409 Mich. 500, 297 N.W.2d 578, 1980 Mich. LEXIS 249 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
409 Mich. 500 p.544
297 N.W.2d 578 p.597
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
1486.
Cited by:
Pletz v. Secretary of State, 125 Mich. App. 335, 336 N.W.2d 789, 1983 Mich. App. LEXIS 2923 (1983)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
125 Mich. App. 335 p.356
336 N.W.2d 789 p.800
1487.
Cited by:
People v. Chapman, 80 Mich. App. 583, 264 N.W.2d 69, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2073 (1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
80 Mich. App. 583 p.587
264 N.W.2d 69 p.70
1488.
Cited by:
People v. Posner, 79 Mich. App. 63, 261 N.W.2d 209, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 837 (1977) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
79 Mich. App. 63 p.69
261 N.W.2d 209 p.212
1489.
Cited by:
Phillips v. Flint, 57 Mich. App. 394, 225 N.W.2d 780, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1605 (1975) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN5
57 Mich. App. 394 p.399
225 N.W.2d 780 p.782
1490.
Cited by:
Sponick v. Detroit Police Dep't, 49 Mich. App. 162, 211 N.W.2d 674, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 813 (1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
49 Mich. App. 162 p.181
211 N.W.2d 674 p.682
1491.
Cited by:
People v. Purifoy, 34 Mich. App. 318, 191 N.W.2d 63, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1612 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN8
34 Mich. App. 318 p.322
191 N.W.2d 63 p.64
Page 193
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1492.
Cited by:
People v. Byrd, 12 Mich. App. 186, 162 N.W.2d 777, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1177 (1968) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN10
12 Mich. App. 186 p.202
162 N.W.2d 777 p.785
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
1493.
Cited by:
In re Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 17 (Minn. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
464 N.W.2d 507 p.509
1494.
Cited by:
Koppinger v. Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 248 N.W.2d 708, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1639 (1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
311 Minn. 186 p.200
248 N.W.2d 708 p.716
1495.
Cited by:
State v. Hipp, 298 Minn. 81, 213 N.W.2d 610, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1034 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
298 Minn. 81 p.87
213 N.W.2d 610 p.614
MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS
1496.
Cited by:
State v. Mauer, 726 N.W.2d 810, 2007 Minn. App. LEXIS 12, 11 No. 5 Minn. Lawyer 28 (2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
726 N.W.2d 810 p.816
1497.
Cited by:
Alexander v. Severson, 408 N.W.2d 195, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4496 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
408 N.W.2d 195 p.198
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
1498.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Bullock v. Mississippi Empl. Sec. Comm'n, 697 So. 2d 1147, 1997 Miss. LEXIS 167 (Miss. 1997)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
697 So. 2d 1147 p.1153
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
1499.
Followed by:
State v. Richard, 2009 Mo. LEXIS 531 (Mo. Nov. 17, 2009)
2009 Mo. LEXIS 531
Page 194
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1500.
Cited by:
State v. Moore, 90 S.W.3d 64, 2002 Mo. LEXIS 100 (Mo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
90 S.W.3d 64 p.66
1501.
Cited by:
State v. Carpenter, 736 S.W.2d 406, 1987 Mo. LEXIS 332 (Mo. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
736 S.W.2d 406 p.407
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
1502.
Cited by:
State v. Cooley, 766 S.W.2d 133, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
766 S.W.2d 133 p.137
1503.
Cited by:
Ferguson Police Officers Asso. v. Ferguson, 670 S.W.2d 921, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 3745 (Mo. Ct. App.
1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
670 S.W.2d 921 p.925
NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT
1504.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507, 695 N.W.2d 165, 2005 Neb. LEXIS 60 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
269 Neb. 507 p.527
695 N.W.2d 165 p.179
1505.
Cited by:
State v. Moore, 250 Neb. 805, 553 N.W.2d 120, 1996 Neb. LEXIS 178 (1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
250 Neb. 805 p.823
553 N.W.2d 120 p.134
NEVADA SUPREME COURT
1506.
Cited by:
Hewitt v. Glaser Land & Livestock Co., 97 Nev. 207, 626 P.2d 268, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 482 (1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
626 P.2d 268 p.269
97 Nev. 207 p.209
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
1507.
Cited by:
State v. Degrenier, 120 N.H. 919, 424 A.2d 412, 1980 N.H. LEXIS 421 (1980)
120 N.H. 919 p.922
424 A.2d 412 p.414
Page 195
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
1508.
Cited by:
New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Com., 82 N.J. 57, 411
A.2d 168, 1980 N.J. LEXIS 1316 (1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN8
82 N.J. 57 p.69
411 A.2d 168 p.174
1509.
Cited by:
Hynes v. Oradell, 66 N.J. 376, 331 A.2d 277, 1975 N.J. LEXIS 214 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3,
HN8
66 N.J. 376 p.386
331 A.2d 277 p.282
1510.
Cited by:
Collingswood v. Ringgold, 66 N.J. 350, 331 A.2d 262, 1975 N.J. LEXIS 213 (1975)
66 N.J. 350 p.365
331 A.2d 262 p.271
1511.
Cited by:
State v. Brown, 62 N.J. 588, 303 A.2d 886, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 269 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6
62 N.J. 588 p.592
303 A.2d 886 p.888
1512.
Cited by:
State v. Young, 57 N.J. 240, 271 A.2d 569, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 210 (1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
57 N.J. 240 p.263
271 A.2d 569 p.581
1513.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Sills, 56 N.J. 210, 265 A.2d 678, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 242 (1970) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
56 N.J. 210 p.221
265 A.2d 678 p.684
1514.
Cited by:
Application of Marvin, 53 N.J. 147, 249 A.2d 377, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 236 (1969) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN9
53 N.J. 147 p.149
249 A.2d 377 p.378
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
1515.
Cited by:
State v. Jones, 198 N.J. Super. 553, 487 A.2d 1278, 1985 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1167 (App.Div. 1985)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
198 N.J. Super. 553 p.561
Page 196
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
487 A.2d 1278 p.1282
1516.
Cited by:
Eatough v. Board of Medical Examiners, 191 N.J. Super. 166, 465 A.2d 934, 1983 N.J. Super. LEXIS 947
(App.Div. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
191 N.J. Super. 166 p.186
465 A.2d 934 p.944
1517.
Cited by:
State v. Finance American Corp., 182 N.J. Super. 33, 440 A.2d 28, 1981 N.J. Super. LEXIS 760 (App.Div.
1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
182 N.J. Super. 33 p.37
440 A.2d 28 p.30
1518.
Cited by:
State v. Hopson, 119 N.J. Super. 84, 290 A.2d 295, 1972 N.J. Super. LEXIS 461 (App.Div. 1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
119 N.J. Super. 84 p.89
290 A.2d 295 p.298
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION
1519.
Cited by:
New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Com., 135 N.J. Super.
537, 343 A.2d 796, 1975 N.J. Super. LEXIS 727 (Ch.Div. 1975)
135 N.J. Super. 537 p.548
343 A.2d 796 p.802
1520.
Cited by:
Keuper v. Wilson, 111 N.J. Super. 502, 268 A.2d 760, 1970 N.J. Super. LEXIS 446 (Ch.Div. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
111 N.J. Super. 502 p.507
268 A.2d 760 p.763
1521.
Cited by:
Anderson v. Sills, 106 N.J. Super. 545, 256 A.2d 298, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 485 (Ch.Div. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
106 N.J. Super. 545 p.550
256 A.2d 298 p.301
1522.
Cited by:
Mutual Home Dealers Corp. v. Commissioner of Banking & Ins., 104 N.J. Super. 25, 248 A.2d 441, 1968
N.J. Super. LEXIS 375 (Ch.Div. 1968) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
104 N.J. Super. 25 p.32
248 A.2d 441 p.445
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, LAW DIVISION
Page 197
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1523.
Cited by:
Delaney v. Penza, 148 N.J. Super. 64, 371 A.2d 830, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 764 (Law Div. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
148 N.J. Super. 64 p.67
371 A.2d 830 p.832
1524.
Cited by:
State v. Rosenberg, 144 N.J. Super. 326, 365 A.2d 486, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 678 (Law Div. 1976)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
144 N.J. Super. 326 p.334
365 A.2d 486 p.490
1525.
Cited by:
State v. Cappon, 118 N.J. Super. 9, 285 A.2d 287, 1971 N.J. Super. LEXIS 390 (Law Div. 1971)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
118 N.J. Super. 9 p.17
285 A.2d 287 p.291
1526.
Cited by:
Camarco v. Orange, 111 N.J. Super. 400, 268 A.2d 354, 1970 N.J. Super. LEXIS 440 (Law Div. 1970)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
111 N.J. Super. 400 p.403
268 A.2d 354 p.356
OTHER NEW JERSEY DECISIONS
1527.
Cited by:
State v. Budco Quality Theaters, Inc., 155 N.J. Super. 50, 382 A.2d 102, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1361, 3
Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2028 (Cty. Ct. 1977)
155 N.J. Super. 50 p.54
382 A.2d 102 p.104
NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS
1528.
Cited by:
State v. Rivera, 115 N.M. 424, 853 P.2d 126, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 9, 32 N.M. B. Bull. 255 (1993)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
115 N.M. 424 p.428
853 P.2d 126 p.130
1529.
Cited by:
State v. James M., 111 N.M. 473, 806 P.2d 1063, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 150 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
111 N.M. 473 p.478
806 P.2d 1063 p.1068
1530.
Cited by:
Page 198
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
State v. Cruz, 110 N.M. 780, 800 P.2d 214, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 110 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
110 N.M. 780 p.781
800 P.2d 214 p.215
1531.
Cited by:
State v. Brecheisen, 101 N.M. 38, 677 P.2d 1074, 1984 N.M. App. LEXIS 620 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
101 N.M. 38 p.43
677 P.2d 1074 p.1079
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
1532.
Cited by:
People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47, 549 N.E.2d 1166, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4417, 550 N.Y.S.2d 595 (1989)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
75 N.Y.2d 47 p.58
549 N.E.2d 1166 p.1172
550 N.Y.S.2d 595 p.601
1533.
Cited by:
People v. Hollman, 68 N.Y.2d 202, 500 N.E.2d 297, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20496, 507 N.Y.S.2d 977 (1986)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
68 N.Y.2d 202 p.208
500 N.E.2d 297 p.301
507 N.Y.S.2d 977 p.981
507 N.Y.S.2d 977 p.982
1534.
Cited by:
In re Alessi, 60 N.Y.2d 229, 457 N.E.2d 682, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3432, 469 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1983) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN10
60 N.Y.2d 229 p.236
457 N.E.2d 682 p.687
469 N.Y.S.2d 577 p.582
1535.
Cited by:
People v. Lang, 36 N.Y.2d 366, 329 N.E.2d 176, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1815, 368 N.Y.S.2d 492 (1975)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
36 N.Y.2d 366 p.369
329 N.E.2d 176 p.178
368 N.Y.S.2d 492 p.495
1536.
Cited by:
Boikess v. Aspland, 24 N.Y.2d 136, 247 N.E.2d 135, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1490, 299 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3, HN9
24 N.Y.2d 136 p.140
247 N.E.2d 135 p.137
247 N.E.2d 135 p.140
299 N.Y.S.2d 163 p.167
Page 199
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
299 N.Y.S.2d 163 p.170
1537.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
People v. Kaiser, 21 N.Y.2d 86, 233 N.E.2d 818, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1047, 286 N.Y.S.2d 801 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN6
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
21 N.Y.2d 86 p.109
Cited by:
21 N.Y.2d 86 p.104
233 N.E.2d 818 p.828
233 N.E.2d 818 p.832
286 N.Y.S.2d 801 p.816
286 N.Y.S.2d 801 p.820
1538.
Cited by:
Bell v. Waterfront Com. of New York Harbor, 20 N.Y.2d 54, 228 N.E.2d 758, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1430, 281
N.Y.S.2d 753, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2746 (1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
20 N.Y.2d 54 p.61
228 N.E.2d 758 p.762
281 N.Y.S.2d 753 p.759
1539.
Cited by:
People v. Epton, 19 N.Y.2d 496, 227 N.E.2d 829, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1514, 281 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1967)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
19 N.Y.2d 496 p.511
227 N.E.2d 829 p.838
281 N.Y.S.2d 9 p.21
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APP. DIV.
1540.
Cited by:
People v. Dupont, 107 A.D.2d 247, 486 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48427 (N.Y. App. Div.
1st Dep't 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
486 N.Y.S.2d 169 p.176
107 A.D.2d 247 p.255
1541.
Cited by:
Calderon v. Buffalo, 61 A.D.2d 323, 402 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741, 3 Media L. Rep.
(BNA) 2454 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
61 A.D.2d 323 p.326
402 N.Y.S.2d 685 p.686
1542.
Cited by:
People v. Dworkin, 36 A.D.2d 430, 321 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3980 (N.Y. App. Div.
4th Dep't 1971) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
36 A.D.2d 430 p.438
321 N.Y.S.2d 263 p.272
Page 200
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1543.
Cited by:
Figari v. New York Tel. Co., 32 A.D.2d 434, 303 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3265 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2d Dep't 1969)
32 A.D.2d 434 p.438
303 N.Y.S.2d 245 p.249
OTHER NEW YORK DECISIONS
1544.
Cited by:
People v. Darryl M., 123 Misc. 2d 723, 475 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3070 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.
1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
123 Misc. 2d 723 p.728
475 N.Y.S.2d 704 p.710
1545.
Cited by:
People v. Folk, 109 Misc. 2d 738, 440 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2461 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
109 Misc. 2d 738 p.742
440 N.Y.S.2d 984 p.987
1546.
Cited by:
People v. J. W. Productions, 98 Misc. 2d 67, 413 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2043, 4 Media L.
Rep. (BNA) 2235 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
98 Misc. 2d 67 p.69
413 N.Y.S.2d 552 p.555
1547.
Cited by:
Club Winks, Inc. v. New York, 99 Misc. 2d 787, 417 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2335 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
99 Misc. 2d 787 p.791
417 N.Y.S.2d 178 p.180
1548.
Cited by:
People v. Lerner, 90 Misc. 2d 513, 394 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2097 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
90 Misc. 2d 513 p.514
394 N.Y.S.2d 514 p.515
1549.
Cited by:
People v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
76 Misc. 2d 948 p.955
351 N.Y.S.2d 978 p.986
1550.
Cited by:
Schwartz v. Time, Inc., 71 Misc. 2d 769, 337 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2349 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 201
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
71 Misc. 2d 769 p.773
337 N.Y.S.2d 125 p.130
1551.
Cited by:
Gannett Co. v. Rochester, 69 Misc. 2d 619, 330 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
69 Misc. 2d 619 p.625
330 N.Y.S.2d 648 p.656
1552.
Cited by:
People v. Kearse, 56 Misc. 2d 586, 289 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1563 (N.Y. City Ct. 1968)
56 Misc. 2d 586 p.593
289 N.Y.S.2d 346 p.354
1553.
Cited by:
Bookcase, Inc. v. Broderick, 49 Misc. 2d 351, 267 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1346 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. 1965)
49 Misc. 2d 351 p.354
267 N.Y.S.2d 410 p.414
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
1554.
Cited by:
Gilbert v. N.C. State Bar, 363 N.C. 70, 678 S.E.2d 602, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 238 (2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
363 N.C. 70 p.81
678 S.E.2d 602 p.609
1555.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc., 296 N.C. 251, 250 S.E.2d 603, 1979 N.C. LEXIS 1147 (1979)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
296 N.C. 251 p.267
250 S.E.2d 603 p.613
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
1556.
Cited by:
State v. McCluney, 11 N.C. App. 11, 180 S.E.2d 419, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1444 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
11 N.C. App. 11 p.15
180 S.E.2d 419 p.421
NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
1557.
Cited by:
Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 283 N.W.2d 96, 1979 N.D. LEXIS 285 (N.D.
1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3
283 N.W.2d 96 p.117
Page 202
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1558.
Cited by:
State v. Woodworth, 234 N.W.2d 243, 1975 N.D. LEXIS 127 (N.D. 1975) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
234 N.W.2d 243 p.249
OHIO SUPREME COURT
1559.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Rear Door Bookstore v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals, 63 Ohio St. 3d 354, 588 N.E.2d 116,
1992 Ohio LEXIS 616 (1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
63 Ohio St. 3d 354 p.357
588 N.E.2d 116 p.120
1560.
Cited by:
South Euclid v. Richardson, 49 Ohio St. 3d 147, 551 N.E.2d 606, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 105 (1990) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
49 Ohio St. 3d 147 p.153
551 N.E.2d 606 p.611
1561.
Cited by:
In re Appeal of Huffer, 47 Ohio St. 3d 12, 546 N.E.2d 1308, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 298 (1989)
47 Ohio St. 3d 12 p.16
546 N.E.2d 1308 p.1313
1562.
Cited by:
State v. Phipps, 58 Ohio St. 2d 271, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 273, 389 N.E.2d 1128, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 430 (1979)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
58 Ohio St. 2d 271 p.275
389 N.E.2d 1128 p.1132
1563.
Cited by:
Oakwood v. Gummer, 38 Ohio St. 2d 164, 67 Ohio Op. 2d 179, 311 N.E.2d 517, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 438
(1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
38 Ohio St. 2d 164 p.168
311 N.E.2d 517 p.520
1564.
Cited by:
Cincinnati v. Hoffman, 31 Ohio St. 2d 163, 60 Ohio Op. 2d 117, 285 N.E.2d 714, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 410
(1972) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
31 Ohio St. 2d 163 p.177
285 N.E.2d 714 p.723
OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
1565.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Pakrats Motorcycle Club, 118 Ohio App. 3d 458, 693 N.E.2d 310, 1997 Ohio
App. LEXIS 647 (Ohio Ct. App., Wayne County 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
Page 203
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
118 Ohio App. 3d 458 p.467
693 N.E.2d 310 p.316
1566.
Cited by:
Cleveland's PM on the Boardwalk v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 231 (Ohio Ct.
App., Cuyahoga County Jan. 23, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 231
1567.
Cited by:
State v. Bilder, 99 Ohio App. 3d 653, 651 N.E.2d 502, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 6121 (Ohio Ct. App.,
Summit County 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
99 Ohio App. 3d 653 p.663
651 N.E.2d 502 p.509
1568.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Becker v. Lions Den Adult Book Store, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 3370 (Ohio Ct. App., Licking
County June 15, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1569.
Cited by:
State v. Van Gundy, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2066 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Apr. 16, 1991)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1570.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Miller v. Rear Door Bookstore, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1243 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County
Mar. 21, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1571.
Cited by:
Lorain v. Davidson, 65 Ohio App. 3d 408, 584 N.E.2d 744, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4463 (Ohio Ct. App.,
Lorain County 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
65 Ohio App. 3d 408 p.412
584 N.E.2d 744 p.746
1572.
Cited by:
STATE v. CASTLE, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 7320 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Oct. 3, 1985)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1573.
Cited by:
State v. Brand, 2 Ohio App. 3d 460, 2 Ohio B. 556, 442 N.E.2d 805, 1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 9999 (Ohio Ct.
App., Hamilton County 1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2 Ohio App. 3d 460 p.461
442 N.E.2d 805 p.808
1574.
Cited by:
State v. Captain Ronald Brown, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 8794 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Dec. 29,
1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
1575.
Cited by:
Conchito v. Tulsa, 1974 OK CR 82, 521 P.2d 1384, 1974 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 341 (Okla. Crim. App.
Page 204
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1974) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
521 P.2d 1384 p.1386
1576.
Cited by:
Mooney v. State, 1973 OK CR 450, 516 P.2d 1364, 1973 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 687 (Okla. Crim. App.
1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10
516 P.2d 1364 p.1367
OREGON SUPREME COURT
1577.
Cited by:
State v. Robertson, 293 Ore. 402, 649 P.2d 569, 1982 Ore. LEXIS 975 (1982) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
293 Ore. 402 p.438
649 P.2d 569 p.591
1578.
Cited by:
Oregon Newspaper Publishers Asso. v. Peterson, 244 Ore. 116, 415 P.2d 21, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 420 (1966)
244 Ore. 116 p.120
415 P.2d 21 p.23
OREGON COURT OF APPEALS
1579.
Cited by:
State v. Nordloh, 208 Ore. App. 309, 144 P.3d 1013, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1469 (2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
208 Ore. App. 309 p.313
144 P.3d 1013 p.1015
1580.
Cited by:
State v. Albee, 118 Ore. App. 212, 847 P.2d 858, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 192 (1993) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
118 Ore. App. 212 p.216
847 P.2d 858 p.860
1581.
Cited by:
State v. Paige, 55 Ore. App. 519, 638 P.2d 1173, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2248 (1982)
55 Ore. App. 519 p.521
638 P.2d 1173 p.1174
1582.
Cited by:
Bopp v. State, 18 Ore. App. 347, 525 P.2d 196, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 975 (1974) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
18 Ore. App. 347 p.349
525 P.2d 196 p.197
1583.
Cited by:
Cornelius v. Ashland, 12 Ore. App. 181, 506 P.2d 182, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1010 (1973) LexisNexis
Page 205
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Headnotes HN3
12 Ore. App. 181 p.191
506 P.2d 182 p.187
1584.
Cited by:
State v. Drummond, 6 Ore. App. 558, 489 P.2d 958, 1971 Ore. App. LEXIS 752 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
6 Ore. App. 558 p.562
489 P.2d 958 p.960
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
1585.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Davidson, 595 Pa. 1, 938 A.2d 198, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2451 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
595 Pa. 1 p.18
938 A.2d 198 p.208
1586.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. De Francesco, 481 Pa. 595, 393 A.2d 321, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 966 (1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN6
481 Pa. 595 p.610
393 A.2d 321 p.329
1587.
Cited by:
Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Bauer, 437 Pa. 37, 261 A.2d 573, 1970 Pa. LEXIS 845 (1970)
437 Pa. 37 p.42
261 A.2d 573 p.575
PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT
1588.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Stock, 346 Pa. Super. 60, 499 A.2d 308, 1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7884 (1985) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
346 Pa. Super. 60 p.67
499 A.2d 308 p.312
1589.
Cited by:
American Booksellers Asso. v. Rendell, 332 Pa. Super. 537, 481 A.2d 919, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5831
(1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
332 Pa. Super. 537 p.555
481 A.2d 919 p.928
1590.
Cited by:
Marcus v. Diulus, 242 Pa. Super. 151, 363 A.2d 1205, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2817 (1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
242 Pa. Super. 151 p.160
363 A.2d 1205 p.1209
Page 206
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1591.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Tiberi, 239 Pa. Super. 152, 361 A.2d 318, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2249 (1976)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
239 Pa. Super. 152 p.160
361 A.2d 318 p.322
1592.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Weiner, 230 Pa. Super. 245, 326 A.2d 896, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2442 (1974)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
230 Pa. Super. 245 p.252
326 A.2d 896 p.899
1593.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Watson, 215 Pa. Super. 498, 258 A.2d 541, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1149 (1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
215 Pa. Super. 498 p.502
258 A.2d 541 p.543
PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH COURT
1594.
Cited by:
Golden Triangle News v. Corbett, 689 A.2d 974, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 65 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
689 A.2d 974 p.985
OTHER PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS
1595.
Cited by:
NRA v. City of Phila., 2008 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 159 (2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 159
1596.
Cited by:
Community Legal Services, Inc., 1967 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 183, 43 Pa. D. & C.2d 51 (1967)
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
1597.
Cited by:
Aiudi v. Baillargeon, 121 R.I. 454, 399 A.2d 1240, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 1799 (1979)
121 R.I. 454 p.462
399 A.2d 1240 p.1245
1598.
Cited by:
State v. Authelet, 120 R.I. 42, 385 A.2d 642, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 637, 5 A.L.R.4th 942 (1978) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
120 R.I. 42 p.58
385 A.2d 642 p.650
Page 207
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1599.
Cited by:
Cummings v. Godin, 119 R.I. 325, 377 A.2d 1071, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1916 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
119 R.I. 325 p.338
377 A.2d 1071 p.1077
OTHER RHODE ISLAND DECISIONS
1600.
Cited by:
State v. Chiello, 1995 R.I. Super. LEXIS 135 (1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
1601.
Cited by:
In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380, 639 S.E.2d 144, 2006 S.C. LEXIS 351 (S.C. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
371 S.C. 380 p.384
639 S.E.2d 144 p.146
SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
1602.
Cited by:
State v. Asmussen, 2003 SD 102, 668 N.W.2d 725, 2003 S.D. LEXIS 131 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
2003 SD 102
668 N.W.2d 725 p.729
TEXAS SUPREME COURT
1603.
Cited by:
State v. Scott, 460 S.W.2d 103, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 303, 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 63 (Tex. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN3
460 S.W.2d 103 p.110
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
1604.
Cited by:
Yorko v. State, 690 S.W.2d 260, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
690 S.W.2d 260 p.271
1605.
Cited by:
McCarty v. State, 616 S.W.2d 194, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 978 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)
616 S.W.2d 194 p.196
1606.
Cited by:
Faulk v. State, 608 S.W.2d 625, 1980 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1408 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
Page 208
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
608 S.W.2d 625 p.633
1607.
Cited by:
Pruett v. State, 463 S.W.2d 191, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
463 S.W.2d 191 p.193
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS
1608.
Cited by:
TXU Generation Co., L.P. v. PUC of Tex., 165 S.W.3d 821, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3771 (Tex. App. Austin
2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
165 S.W.3d 821 p.841
1609.
Cited by:
Frieling v. State, 67 S.W.3d 462, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 377 (Tex. App. Austin 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN6
67 S.W.3d 462 p.473
1610.
Cited by:
Morehead v. State, 746 S.W.2d 830, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 723 (Tex. App. Dallas 1988) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
746 S.W.2d 830 p.834
1611.
Cited by:
Sanders v. State, 649 S.W.2d 59, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5283 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1982)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
649 S.W.2d 59 p.67
1612.
Cited by:
Tisdale v. State, 640 S.W.2d 409, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5160 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1982) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
640 S.W.2d 409 p.412
1613.
Cited by:
Shelton v. State, 640 S.W.2d 649, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 4440 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1982)
640 S.W.2d 649 p.651
TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
1614.
Cited by:
Covarrubia v. Butler, 502 S.W.2d 229, 1973 Tex. App. LEXIS 2028 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1973)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
502 S.W.2d 229 p.230
UTAH SUPREME COURT
Page 209
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1615.
Cited by:
Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 2004 UT 14, 86 P.3d 735, 2004 Utah LEXIS 24, 493 Utah Adv. 9 (2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
2004 UT 14
86 P.3d 735 p.738
VERMONT SUPREME COURT
1616.
Cited by:
State v. Read, 165 Vt. 141, 680 A.2d 944, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 44 (1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
165 Vt. 141 p.146
680 A.2d 944 p.947
1617.
Cited by:
Burns v. Times Argus Ass'n, 139 Vt. 381, 430 A.2d 773, 1981 Vt. LEXIS 490, 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1212
(1981) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
139 Vt. 381 p.389
430 A.2d 773 p.777
VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT
1618.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 341, 657 S.E.2d 478, 2008 Va. LEXIS 42 (2008)
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
275 Va. 341 p.366
657 S.E.2d 478 p.493
Cited by:
275 Va. 341 p.353
657 S.E.2d 478 p.485
1619.
Cited by:
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 264 Va. 48, 563 S.E.2d 674, 2002 Va. LEXIS 71 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
264 Va. 48 p.55
563 S.E.2d 674 p.678
1620.
Cited by:
Pedersen v. Richmond, 219 Va. 1061, 254 S.E.2d 95, 1979 Va. LEXIS 212 (1979) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN8
219 Va. 1061 p.1066
254 S.E.2d 95 p.99
1621.
Cited by:
Stanley v. Norfolk, 218 Va. 504, 237 S.E.2d 799, 1977 Va. LEXIS 281 (1977) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
218 Va. 504 p.506
237 S.E.2d 799 p.800
Page 210
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1622.
Cited by:
Owens v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 633, 179 S.E.2d 477, 1971 Va. LEXIS 235 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
211 Va. 633 p.638
179 S.E.2d 477 p.481
VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS
1623.
Cited by:
Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 669, 406 S.E.2d 398, 1991 Va. App. LEXIS 140, 7 Va. Law
Rep. 2935 (1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
12 Va. App. 669 p.671
406 S.E.2d 398 p.399
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
1624.
Cited by:
State v. Zuanich, 92 Wn.2d 61, 593 P.2d 1314, 1979 Wash. LEXIS 1194 (1979)
92 Wn.2d 61 p.65
593 P.2d 1314 p.1317
1625.
Cited by:
Seattle v. Buchanan, 90 Wn.2d 584, 584 P.2d 918, 1978 Wash. LEXIS 1112 (1978) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
90 Wn.2d 584 p.602
584 P.2d 918 p.927
1626.
Cited by:
Blondheim v. State, 84 Wn.2d 874, 529 P.2d 1096, 1975 Wash. LEXIS 1112 (1975) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
84 Wn.2d 874 p.876
529 P.2d 1096 p.1099
1627.
Cited by:
State v. J--R Distribs., 82 Wn.2d 584, 512 P.2d 1049, 1973 Wash. LEXIS 708 (1973)
82 Wn.2d 584 p.639
512 P.2d 1049 p.1080
1628.
Cited by:
State v. Spence, 81 Wn.2d 788, 506 P.2d 293, 1973 Wash. LEXIS 851 (1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
81 Wn.2d 788 p.812
506 P.2d 293 p.307
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS
1629.
Cited by:
Pacific Trucking v. Department of Revenue, 1997 Wash. App. LEXIS 68 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 1997)
Page 211
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1630.
Cited by:
Seattle v. Eze, 45 Wn. App. 744, 727 P.2d 262, 1986 Wash. App. LEXIS 3386 (1986) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN4
45 Wn. App. 744 p.748
727 P.2d 262 p.264
1631.
Cited by:
Everett v. Moore, 37 Wn. App. 862, 683 P.2d 617, 1984 Wash. App. LEXIS 3038 (1984)
37 Wn. App. 862 p.867
683 P.2d 617 p.620
1632.
Cited by:
State v. Gossett, 11 Wn. App. 864, 527 P.2d 91, 1974 Wash. App. LEXIS 1311 (1974)
11 Wn. App. 864 p.868
527 P.2d 91 p.94
1633.
Cited by:
O'Brien v. Tribune Pub. Co., 7 Wn. App. 107, 499 P.2d 24, 1972 Wash. App. LEXIS 946 (1972)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
7 Wn. App. 107 p.115
499 P.2d 24 p.29
1634.
Cited by:
State v. Spence, 5 Wn. App. 752, 490 P.2d 1321, 1971 Wash. App. LEXIS 1118 (1971) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
5 Wn. App. 752 p.763
490 P.2d 1321 p.1327
1635.
Cited by:
Tait v. King Broadcasting Co., 1 Wn. App. 250, 460 P.2d 307, 1969 Wash. App. LEXIS 312 (1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1 Wn. App. 250 p.255
460 P.2d 307 p.311
WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME CT. OF APPEALS
1636.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Weaver v. Shaffer, 170 W. Va. 107, 290 S.E.2d 244, 1980 W. Va. LEXIS 662 (1980)
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
170 W. Va. 107 p.115
290 S.E.2d 244 p.252
Cited by:
170 W. Va. 107 p.110
290 S.E.2d 244 p.247
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
Page 212
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1637.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
State v. Stevenson, 2000 WI 71, 236 Wis. 2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 90, 2000 Wisc. LEXIS 413 (2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3, HN6
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
2000 WI 71
236 Wis. 2d 86 p.111
613 N.W.2d 90 p.102
Cited by:
236 Wis. 2d 86 p.93
613 N.W.2d 90 p.93
1638.
Cited by:
State v. Weidner, 2000 WI 52, 235 Wis. 2d 306, 611 N.W.2d 684, 2000 Wisc. LEXIS 396 (2000)
2000 WI 52
235 Wis. 2d 306 p.322
611 N.W.2d 684 p.691
1639.
Cited by:
Lounge Mgmt. v. Town of Trenton, 219 Wis. 2d 13, 580 N.W.2d 156, 1998 Wisc. LEXIS 103 (Wis. 1998)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
219 Wis. 2d 13 p.22
580 N.W.2d 156 p.160
1640.
Cited by:
Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis. 2d 397, 407 N.W.2d 533, 1987 Wisc. LEXIS 676 (Wis. 1987)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
139 Wis. 2d 397 p.421
407 N.W.2d 533 p.543
1641.
Cited by:
State v. Princess Cinema of Milwaukee, Inc., 96 Wis. 2d 646, 292 N.W.2d 807, 1980 Wisc. LEXIS 2599, 6
Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1458 (Wis. 1980) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
96 Wis. 2d 646 p.657
292 N.W.2d 807 p.813
1642.
Cited by:
Butala v. State, 71 Wis. 2d 569, 239 N.W.2d 32, 1976 Wisc. LEXIS 1255 (Wis. 1976) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN3
71 Wis. 2d 569 p.577
239 N.W.2d 32 p.36
1643.
Cited by:
State ex rel. Chobot v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 61 Wis. 2d 354, 212 N.W.2d 690, 1973 Wisc.
LEXIS 1271 (Wis. 1973) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6
61 Wis. 2d 354 p.370
212 N.W.2d 690 p.698
Page 213
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1644.
Cited by:
State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis. 2d 497, 164 N.W.2d 512, 1969 Wisc. LEXIS 1037, 32 A.L.R.3d 531 (Wis. 1969)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
41 Wis. 2d 497 p.509
164 N.W.2d 512 p.518
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
1645.
Cited by:
Madison v. Baumann, 155 Wis. 2d 388, 455 N.W.2d 647, 458 N.W.2d 532, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 217
(Wis. Ct. App. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
155 Wis. 2d 388 p.396
455 N.W.2d 647 p.650
1646.
Cited by:
CITY OF MADISON v. SILLS, 102 Wis. 2d 723, 308 N.W.2d 421, 1981 Wisc. App. LEXIS 4132 (Wis. Ct.
App. 1981)
1647.
Cited by:
CITY OF RACINE v. SCHWARTZ, 90 Wis. 2d 860, 279 N.W.2d 509, 1979 Wisc. App. LEXIS 3250 (Wis.
Ct. App. 1979) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
1648.
Cited by:
Saint Croix County v. Friday Canning Co., 89 Wis. 2d 763, 278 N.W.2d 283, 1979 Wisc. App. LEXIS 3174
(Wis. Ct. App. 1979)
1649.
Cited by:
State v. Dronso, 90 Wis. 2d 110, 279 N.W.2d 710, 1979 Wisc. App. LEXIS 2669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
90 Wis. 2d 110 p.113
279 N.W.2d 710 p.712
1650.
Cited by:
STATE ex rel. KAUPER v. WAUKESHA CTY. SHERIFF'S GRIEVANCE COMM., 1978 Wisc. App. LEXIS
752 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
WYOMING SUPREME COURT
1651.
Cited by:
Jones v. State, 2007 WY 201, 173 P.3d 379, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 217 (Wyo. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
2007 WY 201
173 P.3d 379 p.383
1652.
Cited by:
Rutti v. State, 2004 WY 133, 100 P.3d 394, 2004 Wyo. LEXIS 177 (Wyo. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN3
2004 WY 133
100 P.3d 394 p.401
Page 214
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1653.
Cited by:
Cooney v. Park County, 792 P.2d 1287, 1990 Wyo. LEXIS 43 (Wyo. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
792 P.2d 1287 p.1331
1654.
Cited by:
Rodarte v. Riverton, 552 P.2d 1245, 1976 Wyo. LEXIS 208 (Wyo. 1976)
552 P.2d 1245 p.1270
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS SUPREME COURT
1655.
Cited by:
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS v. ODEN, 3 N. Mar. I. 186, 1992 N. Mar.
I. LEXIS 22 (1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
PUERTO RICO SUPREME COURT
1656.
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
PUERTO RICO COURT OF APPEALS
1657.
Cited by:
FRANCISCO ROSARIO PEREZ, Demandante-Apelante v. ANABELLE RODRIGUEZ, SECRETARIA DEL
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA, Demandada-Apelada, 2002 PR App. LEXIS 2531 (P.R. Ct. App. Dec.
12, 2002)
PUERTO RICO
1658.
Cited by:
2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14
2 P.R. Offic. Trans. 14 p.14
OTHER CITATIONS
1659.
Cited by:
ARTICLE: In Chambers Opinions by Justices of the Supreme Court, 5 Green Bag 2d 181 (2002)
ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 8 Citing Statutes )
1660.
USCS Const. Amend. 1
1661.
USCS Const. Amend. 14, @ 5
1662.
28 USCS @ 2201
1663.
28 USCS @ 2201
1664.
28 USCS @ 2201
Page 215
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1665.
28 USCS @ 2201
1666.
28 U.S.C. sec. 2283
1667.
42 U.S.C. sec. 1983
LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 403 Citing References )
1668.
ARTICLE: SALERNO VS. CHEVRON: WHAT TO DO ABOUT STATUTORY CHALLENGES, 55 Ad. L.
Rev. 427 (2003)
1669.
ARTICLE: Accommodating Regulatory Enforcement and Bankruptcy Protection., 59 Am. Bank. L.J. 1
(1985)
1670.
ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING FEDERAL PROSECUTORIAL DECLINATIONS: AN EMPIRICAL
ANALYSIS OF PREDICTIVE FACTORS, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1439 (2004)
1671.
ARTICLE: Back with a Vengeance: The Resilience of Retribution as an Articulated Purpose of Criminal
Punishment, 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1313 (2000)
1672.
AMERICAN LAW IN A TIME OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE: U.S. NATIONAL REPORTS TO THE
XVITH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW: SECTION IV: Standing to Raise
Constitutional Issues, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 437 (2002)
1673.
ARTICLE: A PROPOSAL TO RESCUE NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN BY PROMOTING A
RESPONSIBLE PRESS, 57 Am. U.L. Rev. 73 (2007)
57 Am. U.L. Rev. 73 p.73
1674.
NOTE: A STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT: OBSCENITY AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNDER
MARYLAND v. MACON., 36 Am. U.L. Rev. 773 (1987)
1675.
NOTE: THE EXTENSION OF COMITY: FAIR ASSESSMENT IN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION v.
McNARY., 32 Am. U.L. Rev. 1123 (1983)
1676.
ARTICLE: Civil Jurisdiction: The Boundaries Between Federal and Tribal Courts, 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 705
(1997)
1677.
ARTICLE: DUELING CLASS ACTIONS, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 (2000)
80 B.U.L. Rev. 461 p.461
1678.
ARTICLE: BEHIND THE PARITY DEBATE: THE DECLINE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS TRADITION IN
THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 609 (1991)
1679.
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)
1680.
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)
1681.
Justice Byron R. White: A Modern Federalist and a New Deal Liberal, 1994 BYU L. Rev. 313 (1994)
1682.
ARTICLE: Parallel Litigation *, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 769 (1999)
Page 216
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1683.
Limits on the Right to Hate: A Look at the Texas Hate Crime Act *, 46 Baylor L. Rev. 399 (1994)
1684.
ANNUAL REVIEW 2008: PRIVACY: Note: Pan, Tilt, Zoom: Regulating the Use of Video Surveillance of
Public Places, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 755 (2008)
1685.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: NOTE: United States v. American Library Ass'n: The Children's Internet
Protection Act, Library Filtering, and Institutional Roles, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 555 (2004)
1686.
ARTICLE: A Return to Lilliput: The LICRA v. Yahoo! Case and the Regulation of Online Content in the
World Market, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1191 (2003)
1687.
ARTICLE: First Amendment Limitations on Tort Law *, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 755 (2004)
69 Brook. L. Rev. 755 p.755
1688.
NOTES: "PUT YOUR BODY ON THE LINE:" CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND INJUNCTIONS, 59 Brook. L.
Rev. 1497 (1994)
1689.
THE THIRD ABRAHAM L. POMERANTZ LECTURE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND GOVERNMENT
REGULATION OF ECONOMIC MARKETS; LECTURE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF CAPITAL MARKETS., 55 Brook. L. Rev. 5 (1989)
1690.
SYMPOSIUM: DEFAMATION IN FICTION: INTRODUCTION: LITERATURE, LIFE, AND THE LAW., 51
Brook. L. Rev. 225 (1985)
1691.
NOTE: NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 84: AN UNJUSTIFIABLY BROAD APPROACH TO
INTELLIGENCE PROTECTION., 51 Brook. L. Rev. 147 (1984)
1692.
THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW -- 1982-1983 TERM: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: COMMENTARY: THE
MODIFICATION OF EQUITABLE DECREES: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY., 50 Brook. L. Rev. 459
(1984)
1693.
ARTICLE: Marbury and the Constitutional Mind: A Bicentennial Essay on the Wages of Doctrinal
TensionMarbury and the Constitutional Mind: A Bicentennial Essay on the Wages of Doctrinal Tension, 91
Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2003)
91 Cal. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1694.
Pendent Jurisdiction and the Eleventh Amendment., 75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 (1987)
75 Cal. L. Rev. 129 p.160
1695.
COMMENT: The Constitutionality of Expanding Prepublication Review of Government Employees'
Speech., 72 Cal. L. Rev. 962 (1984)
1696.
69 Cal. L. Rev. 377
69 Cal. L. Rev. 377 p.430
1697.
68 Cal. L. Rev. 422
68 Cal. L. Rev. 422 p.441
1698.
64 Cal. L. Rev. 943
Page 217
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
64 Cal. L. Rev. 943 p.970
1699.
62 Cal. L. Rev. 1385
62 Cal. L. Rev. 1385 p.1429
1700.
ARTICLE: THE ROAD NOT TAKEN: THE CURSE OF CHAPLINSKY, 24 Cap. U.L. Rev. 331 (1995)
1701.
SYMPOSIUM: FACING FACTS: ONLY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAN GUARANTEE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR ALL, 21 Cardozo L. Rev. 689 (1999)
1702.
Comment: The Strong Medicine of Overbreadth as Applied to Criminal Libel, 59 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 553
(2009)
59 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 553 p.553
1703.
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)
1704.
THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION: A SYMPOSIUM:
Thinking about Habeas Corpus, 37 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 748 (1987)
1705.
SYMPOSIUM: REFLECTING ON JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR'S JURISPRUDENCE RELATING
TO RACE AND EDUCATION: COMMENT: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS: IN DANGER IN THE WAKE OF "BONG HITS 4 JESUS", 57 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1183 (2008)
57 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1183 p.1183
1706.
Comment: "FACE"-ING THE CONSTITUTION: THE BATTLE OVER THE FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO
CLINIC ENTRANCES SHIFTS FROM REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FACILITIES TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS *, 46 Cath. U.L. Rev. 165 (1996)
46 Cath. U.L. Rev. 165 p.165
1707.
STUDENT NOTE: SLOW DEATH OF A SALESMAN: THE WATERING DOWN OF DILUTION VIABILITY
BY DEMANDING PROOF OF ACTUAL ECONOMIC LOSS, 77 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 937 (2002)
77 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 937 p.937
1708.
NOTES & COMMENTS: Regulating Human Cloning Within an Environmental Human Rights Framework,
12 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 165 (2001)
1709.
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
1710.
NOTE: STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND:THE USE OF OVERBREADTH IN ABORTION
JURISPRUDENCE, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 173 (1999)
99 Colum. L. Rev. 173 p.173
1711.
NOTE: SYMBOLIC SPEECH AND SOCIAL MEANING, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1844 (1997)
Page 218
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1712.
THE FIGHTING WORDS DOCTRINE, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1527 (1993)
1713.
NOTE: "SHE WAS JUST SEVENTEEN . . . AND THE WAY SHE LOOKED WAS WAY BEYOND $(HER
YEARS$)": n1 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND OVERBREADTH, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1779 (1990)
1714.
NOTE: RICO'S "PATTERN" REQUIREMENT: VOID FOR VAGUENESS?, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 489 (1990)
1715.
BOOK REVIEW: HABEAS CORPUS AND THE PENALTY OF DEATH. FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. By James S. Liebman., 90 Colum. L. Rev. 255 (1990)
1716.
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.1341
1717.
82 Colum. L. Rev. 199, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 199
82 Colum. L. Rev. 199 p.265
1718.
75 Colum. L. Rev. 328
75 Colum. L. Rev. 328 p.350
1719.
ARTICLE: Regulating Chimeric Communications Technology: The Future of Mobile Tv, 15 CommLaw
Conspectus 187 (2006)
1720.
Article: Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge, 41 Conn. L. Rev.
211 (2008)
41 Conn. L. Rev. 211 p.211
1721.
ARTICLE: Alternative State Remedies in Constitutional Torts, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 (2008)
40 Conn. L. Rev. 723 p.723
1722.
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)
1723.
ARTICLE: THE MYTH OF SUPERIORITY, 16 Const. Commentary 599 (1999)
1724.
REVIEW ESSAY: WHO'S AFRAID OF HENRY HART?, 14 Const. Commentary 175 (1997)
1725.
NOTE: SLOGAN OR SUBSTANCE? UNDERSTANDING "OUR FEDERALISM" AND YOUNGER
ABSTENTION., 73 Cornell L. Rev. 852 (1988)
1726.
73 Cornell L. Rev. 833, 73 Cornell L. Rev. 833
73 Cornell L. Rev. 833 p.861
1727.
ARTICLE: FLOWCHARTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT., 72 Cornell L. Rev. 936 (1987)
72 Cornell L. Rev. 936 p.980
Page 219
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1728.
67 Cornell L. Rev. 482
67 Cornell L. Rev. 482 p.519
1729.
63 Cornell L. Rev. 463
63 Cornell L. Rev. 463 p.467
1730.
63 Cornell L. Rev. 65
63 Cornell L. Rev. 65 p.74
1731.
58 Cornell L. Rev. 51
58 Cornell L. Rev. 51 p.63
1732.
HATE SPEECH IN THE NEW SOUTH AFRICA: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR A LAND
RECOVERING FROM DECADES OF RACIAL REPRESSION AND VIOLENCE, 3 D.C.L. J. Int'l L. &
Prac. 335 (1994)
1733.
SYMPOSIUM: THE RATIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS: ARTICLE: THE ENERGIZING EFFECT OF ENFORCING A HUMAN RIGHTS
TREATY, 42 DePaul L. Rev. 1341 (1993)
1734.
ARTICLE: Addressing Vagueness, Ambiguity, and Other Uncertainty in American Criminal Laws, 80 Denv.
U.L. Rev. 241 (2002)
80 Denv. U.L. Rev. 241 p.241
1735.
COMMENT: Graphic Violence in Computer and Video Games: Is Legislation the Answer?, 100 Dick. L.
Rev. 181 (1995)
1736.
ARTICLE: WOMAN'S CONSTITUTION, 1984 Duke L.J. 447 (1984)
1737.
ARTICLE: A TALE OF TWO CITIES: YITZHAK RABIN'S ASSASSINATION, FREE SPEECH, AND
ISRAEL'S RELIGIOUS-SECULAR KULTURKAMPF, 15 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1 (2001)
1738.
COMMENT: AIMING FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOREST: AN
ANALYSIS OF HUNTER HARASSMENT STATUTES, 48 Emory L.J. 1023 (1999)
1739.
ARTICLE: NAKED POLITICS, FEDERAL COURTS LAW, AND THE CANON OF ACCEPTABLE
ARGUMENTS, 47 Emory L.J. 89 (1998)
1740.
ARTICLE: THE DRAWBACKS OF GROWTH IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 43 Emory L.J. 1147 (1994)
1741.
Note: Discriminatory Filtering: CIPA's Effect on Our Nation's Youth and Why the Supreme Court Erred in
Upholding the Constitutionality of The Children's Internet Protection Act, 57 Fed. Comm. L.J. 555 (2005)
1742.
COMMENT: A Solution to Indecency on the Airwaves, 41 Fed. Comm. L.J. 69 (1988)
1743.
ESSAY: REFLECTIONS ON THE NEW INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
IMPROVEMENT ACT, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 7 (2006)
58 Fla. L. Rev. 7 p.7
Page 220
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1744.
STALKING THE PROBLEMS WITH STALKING LAWS: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF, 45 Fla. L. Rev. 609
(1993)
1745.
ARTICLE: THE APPLICATION OF PRODUCT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES TO PUBLISHERS OF VIOLENT
OR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL, 3 Fla. L. Rev. 603 (2000)
1746.
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
1747.
CASE NOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: A NEW EXCEPTION TO THE
FIRST AMENDMENT -- NEW YORK V. FERBER, 50 U.S.L.W. 5077 (U.S. July 2, 1982), 10 Fla. St. U.L.
Rev. 684 (1983)
1748.
NOTE: BROADCAST INDECENCY REGULATION IN THE ERA OF THE "WARDROBE
MALFUNCTION": HAS THE FCC GROWN TOO BIG FOR ITS BRITCHES?, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 871
(2005)
74 Fordham L. Rev. 871 p.871
1749.
ARTICLE: A NEW TRICK FROM AN OLD AND ABUSED DOG: SECTION 1441(c) LIVES AND NOW
PERMITS THE REMAND OF FEDERAL QUESTION CASES., 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1099 (1995)
63 Fordham L. Rev. 1099 p.1099
1750.
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)
1751.
ARTICLE: YOUNGER ABSTENTION REACHES A CIVIL MATURITY: PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO INC.,
57 Fordham L. Rev. 997 (1989)
1752.
NOTE: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REGULATIONS RESTRICTING PRISONER CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE MEDIA., 56 Fordham L. Rev. 1151 (1988)
1753.
NOTE: RICO FORFEITURE AND OBSCENITY: PRIOR RESTRAINT OR SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT?,
56 Fordham L. Rev. 1101 (1988)
1754.
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)
1755.
NOTE: PRECLUSION CONCERNS AS AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR WHEN STAYING A FEDERAL SUIT
IN DEFERENCE TO A CONCURRENT STATE PROCEEDING., 53 Fordham L. Rev. 1183 (1985)
1756.
ARTICLE: POSITIVISM AND ANTIPOSITIVISM IN FEDERAL COURTS LAW, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 655 (1995)
1757.
FELIX FRANKFURTER: THE ARCHITECT OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 27 Ga. L. Rev. 697 (1993)
1758.
ARTICLE: Is Disparity a Problem?, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988)
1759.
FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS:
ARTICLE: Why Professor Redish is Wrong About Abstention, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1097 (1985)
1760.
ARTICLE: Exploring the Interface Between Rule 23 Class Actions and the Anti-Injunction Act, 18 Ga. L.
Page 221
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Rev. 259 (1984)
1761.
ARTICLE: THE SUPREME COURT'S "NEW"FEDERALISM: AN ANTI-RIGHTS AGENDA?, 16 Ga. St.
U.L. Rev. 517 (2000)
1762.
BOOK REVIEW: Federal Courts, State Courts and Civil Rights: Judicial Power and Politics. NAN D.
HUNTER *, 92 Geo. L.J. 941 (2004)
92 Geo. L.J. 941 p.941
1763.
ARTICLE: Integrating Normative and Descriptive Constitutional Theory: The Case of Original Meaning,
85 Geo. L.J. 1765 (1997)
1764.
ARTICLE: Reclaiming Sex from the Pornographers: Cybersexual Possibilities., 83 Geo. L.J. 1969 (1995)
83 Geo. L.J. 1969 p.1982
1765.
ARTICLE: Overruling Statutory Precedents., 76 Geo. L.J. 1361 (1988)
76 Geo. L.J. 1361 p.1439
1766.
NOTE: Media Counteractions: Restoring the Balance to Modern Libel Law., 75 Geo. L.J. 315 (1986)
1767.
COMMENT AND CASENOTE: AN ANALYSIS OF CREDIBLE THREAT STANDING AND EX PARTE
YOUNG FOR SECOND AMENDMENT LITIGATION, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 927 (2009)
1768.
Note: Cleaning Up for Congress: Why Courts Should Reject the Presumption of Severability in the Face of
Intentionally Unconstitutional Legislation, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 698 (2008)
76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 698 p.698
1769.
Integrating the Constitutional Authority of Civil and Criminal Juries, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 724 (1993)
1770.
CHAPTERS: Standing *. STANDING . . . IN THE DOORWAY OF JUSTICE., 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1356
(1991)
1771.
ARTICLE: When Federalism and Separation of Powers Collide -- Rethinking Younger Abstention., 59 Geo.
Wash. L. Rev. 114 (1990)
1772.
Note: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE EXPORT LAWS: FREE SPEECH ON SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL MATTERS. *, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 368 (1989)
1773.
ARTICLE: Statutory Speech Bubbles, First Amendment Overbreadth, and Improper Legislative Purpose, 38
Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 31 (2003)
1774.
ARTICLE: Creating Criminals: The Injuries Inflicted by "Unenforced" Sodomy Laws, 35 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.
Rev. 103 (2000)
1775.
ARTICLE: MAIL FRAUD AND THE INTANGIBLE RIGHTS DOCTRINE: SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER
US, 31 Harv. J. On Legis. 153 (1993)
1776.
ARTICLE: AND WHERE YOU GO I'LL FOLLOW: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANTISTALKING
LAWS AND PROPOSED MODEL LEGISLATION, 31 Harv. J. On Legis. 1 (1993)
1777.
ARTICLE: ENDING THE WAR ON TERRORISM BONE TERRORIST AT A TIME A NONCRIMINAL
Page 222
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
DETENTION MODEL FOR HOLDING AND RELEASING GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES, 29 Harv.
J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 149 (2005)
1778.
LEADING CASE, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 385 (2008)
122 Harv. L. Rev. 385 p.385
1779.
RESPONSE: RIGHTS, RULES, AND THE STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION: A
RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR FALLON, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1371 (2000)
113 Harv. L. Rev. 1371 p.1371
1780.
IN MEMORIAM: WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., 111 Harv. L. Rev. 41 (1997)
111 Harv. L. Rev. 41 p.41
1781.
A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., 104 Harv. L. Rev. 15 (1990)
104 Harv. L. Rev. 15 p.15
1782.
ARTICLE: THE DEATH OF THE IRREPARABLE INJURY RULE., 103 Harv. L. Rev. 687 (1990)
103 Harv. L. Rev. 687 p.735
1783.
BOOK REVIEW: LAW STORY. HART AND WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL
SYSTEM. By Paul M. Bator, n1 Daniel J. Meltzer, n2 Paul J. Mishkin, n3 and David L. Shapiro. n4,
102 Harv. L. Rev. 688 (1989)
102 Harv. L. Rev. 688 p.688
1784.
ARTICLE: HOW TO BUILD A SEPARATE SPHERE: FEDERAL COURTS AND STATE POWER., 100
Harv. L. Rev. 1485 (1987)
100 Harv. L. Rev. 1485 p.1533
1785.
99 Harv. L. Rev. 120, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 120
99 Harv. L. Rev. 120 p.120
1786.
THE SUPREME COURT, 1984 TERM: I. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. $(PART 2 of 2$), 99 Harv. L. Rev. 120
(1985)
1787.
BOOK REVIEW: AN ACTIVISM OF AMBIVALENCE THE BURGER COURT: THE COUNTERREVOLUTION THAT WASN'T. Edited by Vincent Blasi. n1, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 (1984)
98 Harv. L. Rev. 315 p.315
1788.
THE SUPREME COURT, 1983 TERM: LEADING CASES OF THE 1983 TERM: I. CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 87 (1984)
98 Harv. L. Rev. 87 p.87
1789.
93 Harv. L. Rev. 297
93 Harv. L. Rev. 297 p.316
Page 223
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1790.
90 Harv. L. Rev. 1105
90 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 p.1118
1791.
86 Harv. L. Rev. 645
86 Harv. L. Rev. 645 p.649
1792.
ARTICLE: The Transformation of Statutes into Constitutional Law: How Early Post Office Policy Shaped
Modern First Amendment Doctrine, 58 Hastings L.J. 671 (2007)
58 Hastings L.J. 671 p.671
1793.
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW: A SYMPOSIUM; COMMENT: The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in Village of
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.: Revision or Misapplication?, 34 Hastings L.J. 1273
(1983)
1794.
LAWYERING AT THE EDGE: UNPOPULAR CLIENTS, DIFFICULT CASES, ZEALOUS ADVOCATES:
THE "CHARLES STIMSON" RULE AND THREE OTHER PROPOSALS TO PROTECT LAWYERS FROM
LAWYERS, 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 323 (2007)
36 Hofstra L. Rev. 323 p.323
1795.
ARTICLE: SOME REALISM ABOUT FACIAL INVALIDATION OF STATUTES, 30 Hofstra L. Rev. 647
(2002)
30 Hofstra L. Rev. 647 p.647
1796.
ARTICLE: THE PUZZLING FIRST AMENDMENT OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 1063
(1997)
25 Hofstra L. Rev. 1063 p.1063
1797.
COMMENT: TRADE SECRETS AND THE FOURTH ESTATE: CAN EMPLOYERS CLAIM TRADE
SECRET PROTECTION OVER A REPORTER'S CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES?*, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1157
(2002)
39 Hous. L. Rev. 1157 p.1157
1798.
STUDENTS' COMMENT: Torts -- The Right of Recovery for the Tortious Death n1 of the Unborn. n2, 27
How. L.J. 1649 (1984)
27 How. L.J. 1649 p.1649
1799.
CASE NOTE: ATTORNEY'S EXPANDING RIGHT TO ADVERTISE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
In Re R.M.J. n1, 26 How. L.J. 281 (1983)
26 How. L.J. 281 p.281
1800.
ARICULOS & ENSAYOS: ANALISIS DEL PRINCIPIO DE COMPLEMENTARIEDAD DE LA CORTE
PENAL INTERNACIONAL TRAS EL LENTE DE LAS CORTES FEDERALES, 13 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L
495 (2007)
1801.
ARTICLE & ESSAY: ANALYZING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT COMPLEMENTARITY
Page 224
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
PRINCIPLE THROUGH A FEDERAL COURTS LENS, 13 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 413 (2007)
1802.
SYMPOSIUM: Federal Power to Commandeer State Courts: Implications for the Theory of Judicial
Federalism, 32 Ind. L. Rev. 71 (1998)
32 Ind. L. Rev. 71 p.71
1803.
NOTE: Municipal Zoning Restrictions on Adult Entertainment: Young, Its Progeny, and Indianapolis'
Special Exceptions Ordinance, 58 Ind. L.J. 505 (1983)
58 Ind. L.J. 505 p.505
1804.
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
1805.
NOTE: Censorship by Multiple Prosecution: "annihilation, by attrition if not conviction" n1, 77 Iowa L.
Rev. 269 (1991)
77 Iowa L. Rev. 269 p.269
1806.
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
1807.
ARTICLE: Supreme Court Review: First Amendment -- Nonobscene Child Pornography and its Categorical
Exclusion From Constitutional Protection: New York v. Ferber, 102 S. Ct. 3348 (1982), 73 J. Crim. L. &
Criminology 1337 (1982)
1808.
ARTICLE: Criminal Law: Criminal Liability, Public Policy, and the Principle of Legality in the Republic of
South Africa, 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1061 (1982)
1809.
ARTICLE: Formality, Neutrality, and Goal-Rationality: The Legacy of Weber in Analyzing Legal Thought
*, 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 533 (1982)
1810.
ARTICLE: The Rehnquist Court's Federalism Decisions in Perspective, 15 J. L. & Politics 127 (1999)
1811.
COMMENTSREGULATING MINORS' ACCESS TO PORNOGRAPHY VIA THE INTERNET: WHAT
OPTIONS DO CONGRESS HAVE LEFT?, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 453 (2005)
1812.
ARTICLE: Agencies and the Arts: The Dilemma of Subsidizing Expression, 24 J. NAALJ 271 (2004)
1813.
Oral Argument To Be Calendared For The FirstAppropriate Date After Completion Of BriefingIn The
United States Court Of AppealsFor The District Of Columbia Circuit, 4 J.L. & Pol'y 33 (1995)
1814.
44 La. L. Rev. 967, 44 La. L. Rev. 967
44 La. L. Rev. 967 p.967
1815.
39 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 4 183
39 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 4 183 p.203
Page 225
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1816.
SYMPOSIUM: Brown II: Ordinary Remedies for Extraordinary Wrongs, 24 Law & Ineq. J. 47 (2006)
1817.
ARTICLE: Breaking the Enigma Code: Why the Law Has Failed to Recognize Sex as Expressive Conduct
Under the First Amendment, and Why Sex Between Men Proves That It Should, 12 Law & Sex. 159 (2003)
1818.
REVIEW ESSAYS: Reconsidering the Frankfurterian Paradigm: Reflections on Histories of Lower Federal
Courts, 24 Law & Soc. Inquiry 679 (1999)
1819.
ANNUAL SIXTH CIRCUIT SURVEY: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 2001 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 521 (2001)
2001 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 521 p.521
1820.
ARTICLE: DEFENDING THE FIRST IN THE NINTH: JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI AND THE FREEDOMS
OF SPEECH AND PRESS, 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 259 (2003)
1821.
ARTICLE: A PYRRHIC PRESS VICTORY: WHY HOLDING RICHARD JEWELL IS A PUBLIC FIGURE IS
WRONG AND HARMS JOURNALISM, 22 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 293 (2002)
1822.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION*: THE ANTIINJUNCTION AND ALL WRITS ACT IN COMPLEX LITIGATION, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 (2004)
37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1603 p.1603
1823.
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
1824.
ARTICLE: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ONLINE VOTE SWAPPING, 34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1297
(2001)
34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1297 p.1297
1825.
SYMPOSIUM ON NEW DIRECTIONS IN FEDERALISM: JUDICIAL V. CONGRESSIONAL
FEDERALISM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW FEDERALISM DECISIONS ON MASS TORT CASES
AND OTHER COMPLEX LITIGATION, 33 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1559 (2000)
1826.
NOTES AND COMMENTS: WILLIAMS v. GARCETTI: CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS IN CALIFORNIA'S
"GANG-PARENT" LIABILITY STATUTE, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 447 (1994)
1827.
Note: Burned Out: The Supreme Court Strikes Down Virginia's Cross Burning Statute in Virginia v. Black,
35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1049 (2004)
1828.
ARTICLE: THE TROUBLE WITH "FIGHTING WORDS": CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A
THREAT TO FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED, 88 Marq. L. Rev. 441
(2004)
88 Marq. L. Rev. 441 p.441
1829.
ARTICLE: Journalism, Libel Law and a Reputation Tarnished: A Dialogue with Richard Jewell and His
Attorney, L. Lin Wood, 35 McGeorge L. Rev. 1 (2004)
35 McGeorge L. Rev. 1 p.1
1830.
THE MARYLAND SURVEY: 1993-1994: Recent Decisions The Maryland Court of Appeals, 54 Md. L. Rev.
Page 226
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
670 (1995)
1831.
ARTICLE: WANTED: A FEDERAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING THE ADEQUATE STATE FORUM,
50 Md. L. Rev. 131 (1991)
1832.
ARTICLE: THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR SELF-RESTRAINT?, 47
Md. L. Rev. 118 (1987)
1833.
CASENOTE: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union: First Amendment Free Speech Guarantee Extended
to the Internet, 49 Mercer L. Rev. 625 (1998)
1834.
ARTICLE: PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 589
(2005)
103 Mich. L. Rev. 589 p.589
1835.
SYMPOSIUM CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION: ARTICLE:SOME EFFECTS OF IDENTITY-BASED
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, 100 Mich. L. Rev.
2062 (2002)
100 Mich. L. Rev. 2062 p.2062
1836.
HEALING THE BLIND GODDESS: RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE:, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 1941 (2000)
98 Mich. L. Rev. 1941 p.1941
1837.
ARTICLE: RIGHTS AGAINST RULES: THE MORAL STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (1998)
97 Mich. L. Rev. 1 p.143
1838.
NOTE: The Casey Standard for Evaluating Facial Attacks on Abortion Statutes, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1443
(1997)
95 Mich. L. Rev. 1443 p.1443
1839.
ARTICLE: A REVISIONIST THEORY OF ABSTENTION. $(+$), 88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 (1989)
88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 p.561
1840.
1984 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW: I. THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE
CONSTITUTION: IS THE BURGER COURT REALLY LIKE THE WARREN COURT? THE BURGER
COURT: THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION THAT WASN'T. Edited by Vincent Blasi., 82 Mich. L. Rev. 635
(1984)
82 Mich. L. Rev. 635 p.635
1841.
NOTE: Class Actions for Punitive Damages., 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 (1983)
81 Mich. L. Rev. 1787 p.1787
1842.
1983 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATING TO THE LAW: V. LEGAL HISTORY: HAIL TO THE CHIEF: EARL
WARREN AND THE SUPREME COURT. EARL WARREN: A PUBLIC LIFE. By G. Edward White., 81
Mich. L. Rev. 922 (1983)
81 Mich. L. Rev. 922 p.922
Page 227
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1843.
ARTICLES: CIVILIAN DEMONSTRATIONS NEAR THE MILITARY INSTALLATION: RESTRAINTS ON
MILITARY SURVEILLANCE AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES., 140 Mil. L. Rev. 113 (1993)
1844.
ARTICLES: ARRESTING "TAILHOOK": THE PROSECUTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE
MILITARY., 140 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1993)
1845.
64 Minn. L. Rev. 523
64 Minn. L. Rev. 523 p.546
1846.
TRIBUTE TO JOHN MINOR WISDOM: John Wisdom, Watchman of the Republic, Forester of the Soul, 69
Miss. L.J. 1 (1999)
1847.
ARTICLE: Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy, 15 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 33 (1994)
1848.
Symposium Edition: Political Correctness in the 1990's and Beyond: ARTICLE: THE DEBATE BETWEEN
CRITICS OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" AND ADVOCATES OF SWEEPING ANTIDISCRIMINATION
CODES: A POLARIZED DISCOURSE THAT CAN DO NO GOOD $(Response to Michael Greve$), 23 N.
Ky. L. Rev. 543 (1996)
1849.
NOTE: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul: A Curious Way to Protect Free Speech, 71 N.C. L. Rev. 1252 (1993)
1850.
COMMENT: The Third Generation of Loitering Laws Goes to Court: Do Laws That Criminalize "Loitering
With the Intent to Sell Drugs" Pass Constitutional Muster?, 71 N.C. L. Rev. 513 (1993)
1851.
ARTICLE: WISING UP: "SON OF SAM" LAWS AND THE SPEECH AND PRESS CLAUSES, 70 N.C. L.
Rev. 493 (1992)
1852.
ARTICLE: THE RIGHT TO AVOID TRIAL: JUSTIFYING FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION INTO
ONGOING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 66 N.C. L. Rev. 49 (1987)
1853.
ARTICLE: THE SEPARATE COMMUNITY: MILITARY UNIQUENESS AND SERVICEMEN'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS., 62 N.C. L. Rev. 177 (1984)
1854.
COMMENT: The Government's New War on Drugs: Threatening the Right to Dance!, 29 N.E. J. on Crim.
& Civ. Con. 99 (2003)
1855.
OVERBREADTH OUTSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 53 (2004)
34 N.M. L. Rev. 53 p.53
1856.
NOTE: ONLINE SEARCHES AND OFFLINE CHALLENGES: THE CHILLING EFFECT, ANONYMITY
AND THE NEW FBI GUIDELINES, 60 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 735 (2005)
1857.
ARTICLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 112 (2007)
82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 112 p.112
1858.
NOTE: AVOIDING THE RACE TO RES JUDICATA: FEDERAL ANTISUIT INJUNCTIONS OF
COMPETING STATE CLASS ACTIONS, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1085 (2000)
1859.
NOTE: "START SPREADING THE NEWS": WHY REPUBLISHING MATERIAL FROM
"DISREPUTABLE" NEWS REPORTS MUST BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev.
Page 228
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
966 (2000)
1860.
NOTES: IN THE AFTERMATH OF GENTILE: RECONSIDERING THE EFFICACYOF TRIAL PUBLICITY
RULES, 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 494 (1993)
1861.
Library Awareness Program, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1532 (1990)
1862.
NOTE: "AS NASTY AS THEY WANNA BE": n1 POPULAR MUSIC ON TRIAL, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1481
(1990)
1863.
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.1088
1864.
ARTICLE: EXPLAINING HABEAS CORPUS., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 (1985)
60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 p.1009
1865.
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.20
60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.26
1866.
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.67
1867.
ARTICLE: THE DIVISIBLE FIRST AMENDMENT: A CRITICAL FUNCTIONALIST APPROACH TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING., 58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1273 (1983)
58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1273 p.1306
1868.
51 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 34
51 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 34 p.55
1869.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 740
49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 740 p.743
1870.
49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 693
49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 693 p.735
1871.
NOTE: The Ninth Circuit's Message to Nevada: You're not Getting Any Younger, 3 Nev. L.J. 592 (2003)
1872.
IS ANYTHING OBSCENE ANYMORE: ARTICLE: Obscenity in the Digital Age: The Re-Evaluation of
Community Standards, 10 Nexus J. Op. 59 (2005)
1873.
SYMPOSIUM LAW AND THE CONTINUING ENTERPRISE: PERSPECTIVES ON RICO: NOTE: "Mother
of Mercy -- Is This The End of Rico?" n1 -- Justice Scalia Invites Constitutional Void-for-Vagueness
Page 229
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Challenge to RICO "Pattern", 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1106 (1990)
65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1106 p.1106
1874.
SYMPOSIUM THE BURGER COURT AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: ARTICLE: THE
JUSTICIABILITY DECISIONS OF THE BURGER COURT, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 862 (1985)
1875.
SYMPOSIUM CIVIL RIGHTS AND FEDERALISM: FOREWARD: THE EVER-WHIRLING WHEELS OF
AMERICAN FEDERALISM *, 59 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1063 (1984)
59 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1063 p.1063
1876.
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)
1877.
78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1284
78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1284 p.1287
1878.
78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1031
78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1031 p.1031
1879.
74 Nw. U.L. Rev. 759
74 Nw. U.L. Rev. 759 p.761
1880.
73 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1
73 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 p.2
1881.
69 Nw. U.L. Rev. 489
69 Nw. U.L. Rev. 489 p.531
1882.
THE TWENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE
WORKPLACE: FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER MERITOR SAVINGS BANK: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: Zero
Tolerance for the First Amendment: Title VII's Regulation of Employee Speech, 27 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 563
(2001)
27 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 563 p.563
1883.
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
1884.
Comment: 'Face'ing the First Amendment: Application of RICO and the Clinic Entrances Act to Abortion
Protestors n1, 21 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 1061 (1995)
1885.
SYMPOSIUM: THE WARREN COURT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REVOLUTION: REFLECTIONS A
GENERATION LATER: The Warren Court's Missed Opportunities in Substantive Criminal Law, 3 Ohio St.
J. Crim. L. 75 (2005)
Page 230
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1886.
NOTE: Owner and Promoter Liability in "Club Drug" Initiatives, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 511 (2005)
66 Ohio St. L.J. 511 p.511
1887.
ARTICLE: The Myth of State Sovereignty, 63 Ohio St. L.J. 1601 (2002)
63 Ohio St. L.J. 1601 p.1601
1888.
COMMENT: Classical Malice: A New Fault Standard for Defamation in Fiction., 55 Ohio St. L.J. 187
(1994)
1889.
ARTICLE: A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View of Summary Judgment, Directed
Verdict, and the Adjudication Process. *, 49 Ohio St. L.J. 95 (1988)
1890.
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)
1891.
Comment: Cages, Clinics, and Consequences: The Chilling Problems of Controlling Special-Interest
Extremism, 86 Or. L. Rev. 249 (2007)
1892.
COMMENT: Pre-Enforcement Ripeness Doctrine: The Fitness of Hardship, 80 Or. L. Rev. 1107 (2001)
80 Or. L. Rev. 1107 p.1107
1893.
ARTICLE: Efforts to Legalize Physician-Assisted Suicide in New York, Washington and Oregon: A Contrast
Between Judicial and Initiative Approaches - Who Should Decide?, 77 Or. L. Rev. 1027 (1998)
1894.
Notes: Merrick v. Board of Higher Education: Status and Oregon's Freedom of Expression Law, 72 Or. L.
Rev. 729 (1993)
1895.
36 Or. L. Rev. 249
36 Or. L. Rev. 249 p.249
1896.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SURVEY, 24 Pepp. L. Rev. 286 (1996)
1897.
ARTICULOS: DERECHO PENAL SUSTANCIAL*, 62 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 783 (1993)
1898.
ARTICLE: Preventing Duplicative Mass Tort Litigation through the Limited Resources Doctrine, 14 Rev.
Litig. 465 (1995)
1899.
SYMPOSIUM: FEDERALISM AFTER ALDEN: ARTICLE: THE ALDEN TRILOGY: STILL SEARCHING
FOR A WAY TO ENFORCE FEDERALISM, 31 Rutgers L.J. 631 (2000)
31 Rutgers L.J. 631 p.631
1900.
Centennial Essay: Essay: A Unique Experience at Rutgers School of Law, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 (2008)
61 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 p.1
1901.
TRIBUTE: No Windmills Here: Remembering Arthur Kinoy, 56 Rutgers L. Rev. 5 (2003)
56 Rutgers L. Rev. 5 p.5
Page 231
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1902.
TRIBUTE: Tribute to Arthur Kinoy, 56 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 (2003)
56 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 p.1
1903.
ARTICLE: Vagueness and Police Discretion: The Supreme Court in a Bog, 51 Rutgers L. Rev. 1289 (1999)
51 Rutgers L. Rev. 1289 p.1289
1904.
IN MEMORIAM: TRIBUTE: Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. (1906-1997) The Jurisprudence of Remedies,
49 Rutgers L. Rev. 1277 (1997)
1905.
NOTE: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY: PRESERVING FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S WAR ON RAVES, 12 S. Cal. Interdis. L.J. 139 (2002)
1906.
ARTICLE: THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HABEAS, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125
(2005)
78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1125 p.1125
1907.
ARTICLE: CREATING LEGAL DOCTRINE, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1989 (1996)
1908.
NOTE: RACIST SPEECH ON CAMPUS: A TITLE VII SOLUTION TO A FIRST AMENDMENT
PROBLEM., 64 S. Cal. L. Rev. 105 (1990)
1909.
NOTE: REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE
POLITICAL PROCESS THROUGH AN APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS., 56 S. Cal. L. Rev. 669 (1983)
1910.
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)
1911.
CASENOTE: FIRST AMENDMENT - Freedom of Speech and The Press - Statute Regulating Speech And
Speech-Related Conduct Within 100-Feet Of An Entrance To A Health Care Facility Is A Narrowly
Tailored Content-Neutral Time, Place, And Manner Regulation - Hill v. Colorado, 120 S. Ct. 2480 (2000).,
11 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 429 (2001)
1912.
CASENOTE: FIRST AMENDMENT -- Freedom Of Speech -- Provisions Of The Communications Decency
Act Of 1996 Intended To Protect Minors From Exposure to Indecent And Patently Offensive Material On
The Internet Violate The First Amendment -- Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997)., 8 Seton Hall Const.
L.J. 975 (1998)
1913.
COMMENT: A First Amendment Breach: The National Security Agency's Electronic Surveillance Program,
38 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1197 (2008)
38 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1197 p.1197
1914.
ARTICLE: The Abstention Doctrines: Balancing Comity with Federal Court Intervention, 28 Seton Hall L.
Rev. 1102 (1998)
1915.
ARTICLE: TWO VISIONS OF JUSTICE: FEDERAL COURTS AT A CROSSROADS*, 11 St. John's J.L.
Comm. 63 (1995)
1916.
Article: BAD BEHAVIOR MAKES BIG LAW: SOUTHERN MALFEASANCE AND THE EXPANSION OF
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, 1954-1968*, 82 St. John's L. Rev. 1 (2008)
82 St. John's L. Rev. 1 p.1
Page 232
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1917.
TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS: ARTICLE: WHY I DON'T TEACH FEDERAL COURTS ANYMORE,
BUT MAYBE AM OR WILL AGAIN, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. 843 (2009)
53 St. Louis U. L.J. 843 p.843
1918.
CHILDRESS LECTURE: IF ROE WERE OVERRULED: ABORTION AND THE CONSTITUTION IN A
POST-ROE WORLD, 51 St. Louis U. L.J. 611 (2007)
51 St. Louis U. L.J. 611 p.611
1919.
COMMENTS: ENHANCED PUNISHMENT UNDER THE TEXAS HATE CRIMES ACT: POLITICS,
PANACEA, OR PATHWAY TO HELL?, 26 St. Mary's L. J. 259 (1994)
1920.
GENERAL ISSUE: ABSTENTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: A SUGGESTED BIFURCATED
STANDARD OF REVIEW TO CREATE PROCEDURAL RELIANCE WHERE STATES AND LOCALITIES
REGULATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITY, 13 St. Thomas L. Rev. 539 (2001)
1921.
GENERAL INTEREST ARTICLE: The Constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act, 13 St.
Thomas L. Rev. 425 (2000)
1922.
ARTICLE: Taking Comity Seriously: How to Neutralize the Abstention Doctrine, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049
(1994)
46 Stan. L. Rev. 1049 p.1084
1923.
Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 235 (1994)
46 Stan. L. Rev. 235 p.264
1924.
ARTICLE: Blyew: Variations on a Jurisdictional Theme., 41 Stan. L. Rev. 469 (1989)
41 Stan. L. Rev. 469 p.497
1925.
ARTICLE: From a Legacy of Suppression to the "Metaphor of the Fourth Estate"., 39 Stan. L. Rev. 139
(1986)
39 Stan. L. Rev. 139 p.146
1926.
29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191
29 Stan. L. Rev. 1191 p.1206
1927.
29 Stan. L. Rev. 27
29 Stan. L. Rev. 27 p.32
1928.
26 Stan. L. Rev. 311
26 Stan. L. Rev. 311 p.312
1929.
ARTICLE: BEYOND POLICE MISCONDUCT AND FALSE ARREST: EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF 42
U.S.C. $ S 1983 LITIGATION, 8 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 39 (2003)
Page 233
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1930.
ARTICLE: THE NEW CENSORSHIP: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS, 2004 Sup. Ct. Rev. 271 (2004)
1931.
ARTICLE: A FIRST AMENDMENT COMPASS: NAVIGATING THE SPEECH CLAUSE WITH A FIVESTEP ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, 29 Sw. U. L. Rev. 223 (2000)
1932.
ARTICLE: SEPARATING UNITED STATES SERVICE MEMBERS FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 54
Syracuse L. Rev. 599 (2004)
54 Syracuse L. Rev. 599 p.599
1933.
CASENOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- FIRST AMENDMENT OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE -- OLDER
MINORS AND ADULTS' ACCESS RIGHTS TO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED MATERIAL., 62
Tenn. L. Rev. 353 (1995)
1934.
ARTICLE: THE JURISDICTIONAL LEGACY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 869
(1994)
1935.
BOOK REVIEW: Injunctions. By Owen M. Fiss, Mineola, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 563 (1973)
40 Tenn. L. Rev. 563 p.563
1936.
LEGISLATIVE NOTE: The Abolition of Anonymity: Distribution of Publications Act, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 301
(1973)
40 Tenn. L. Rev. 301 p.301
1937.
COMMENT: Constitutional Protection of Aliens, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 235 (1973)
40 Tenn. L. Rev. 235 p.235
1938.
ARTICLE: The Supreme Court's Recent "National Security" Decisions: Which Interests are Being
Protected?, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1972)
1939.
ARTICLE: Contempt Power: --The Black Robe A Proposal for Due Process, 39 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1971)
1940.
NOTE: Turning in the Client: Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting Requirements and the Criminal Defense of
Battered Women+, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 655 (2002)
81 Tex. L. Rev. 655 p.655
1941.
Book Review: The Politics of Constitutional Law, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 (2000)
79 Tex. L. Rev. 163 p.163
1942.
ARTICLE: Why Is the Supreme Court of the United States Protecting State Judges from Popular
Democracy?, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 907 (1997)
75 Tex. L. Rev. 907 p.985
1943.
BOOK REVIEW: Gladly Wolde He Lerne, and Gladly Teche. * LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS. By Charles
Alan Wright. **, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 957 (1995)
1944.
ARTICLE: Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases: Forum Non Conveniens and
Antisuit Injunctions., 68 Tex. L. Rev. 937 (1990)
68 Tex. L. Rev. 937 p.956
Page 234
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1945.
ARTICLE: Procedure in Public Person Defamation Cases: The Impact of the First Amendment., 66 Tex. L.
Rev. 215 (1987)
66 Tex. L. Rev. 215 p.226
1946.
ESSAY: Crime Talk, Rights Talk, and Double-Talk: Thoughts on Reading Encyclopedia of Crime and
Justice. *, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 101 (1986)
1947.
SYMPOSIUM: A CRITIQUE OF RIGHTS: BOOK REVIEW: Rights on Trial. RIGHTS ON TRIAL: THE
ODYSSEY OF A PEOPLE'S LAWYER. By Arthur Kinoy. +, 62 Tex. L. Rev. 1601 (1984)
1948.
55 Tex. L. Rev. 1141
55 Tex. L. Rev. 1141 p.1145
1949.
52 Tex. L. Rev. 1257
52 Tex. L. Rev. 1257 p.1282
1950.
FIFTH CIRCUIT SURVEY: JUNE 2005-MAY 2006: SURVEY ARTICLE: FIRST AMENDMENT, 39 Tex.
Tech L. Rev. 763 (2007)
39 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 763 p.763
1951.
ARTICLE: AVOIDING ABSTENTION: THE YOUNGER EXCEPTIONS, 29 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 137 (1998)
1952.
PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE: SECTION 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION SYMPOSIUM: Police
Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point of View II, 16 Touro L. Rev. 933 (2000)
1953.
ARTICLE: GOOD FAITH, 71 Tul. L. Rev. 1645 (1997)
71 Tul. L. Rev. 1645 p.1645
1954.
ARTICLE: Constitutional Fact and Process: A First Amendment Model of Censorial Discretion, 70 Tul. L.
Rev. 1229 (1996)
1955.
IN TRIBUTE TO JOHN MINOR WISDOM: THE HONEST MUSE: JUDGE WISDOM AND THE USES OF
HISTORY., 60 Tul. L. Rev. 314 (1985)
60 Tul. L. Rev. 314 p.314
1956.
IN TRIBUTE TO JOHN MINOR WISDOM: FROM A FELLOW WORKER ON THE RAILROADS., 60 Tul.
L. Rev. 244 (1985)
60 Tul. L. Rev. 244 p.244
1957.
IN TRIBUTE TO JOHN MINOR WISDOM: FOREWORD., 60 Tul. L. Rev. 231 (1985)
60 Tul. L. Rev. 231 p.231
1958.
ARTICLE: A FREE PRESS: THE NEED TO ENSURE AN UNFETTERED CHECK ON DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT BETWEEN ELECTIONS., 59 Tul. L. Rev. 243 (1984)
Page 235
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1959.
SYMPOSIUM: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: The Bill of Rights and the Courts: Imperfect and
Incomplete Protection of Human Rights in Criminal Cases, 56 Tul. L. Rev. 148 (1981)
1960.
COMMENT: Presumptions in the Criminal Law of Louisiana, 52 Tul. L. Rev. 793 (1978)
52 Tul. L. Rev. 793 p.793
1961.
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
1962.
ARTICLE: Professional Responsibility and Constitutional Doctrine*, 48 Tul. L. Rev. 465 (1974)
1963.
NOTE: Constitutional Law--Freedom of Speech and Press-Commercial Speech is not Protected by the First
Amendment, 48 Tul. L. Rev. 426 (1974)
48 Tul. L. Rev. 426 p.426
1964.
NOTE: Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure--Abstention--Younger Doctrine Extended to Threatened State
Criminal Prosecutions, 48 Tul. L. Rev. 173 (1973)
48 Tul. L. Rev. 173 p.173
1965.
NOTE: Constitutional Law--Jurisdiction of Federal Courts--First Amendment Chill Resulting from Army
Surveillance Non-Justiciable, 47 Tul. L. Rev. 426 (1973)
47 Tul. L. Rev. 426 p.426
1966.
COMMENT: The Abstention Doctrine: Some Recent Developments, 46 Tul. L. Rev. 762 (1972)
46 Tul. L. Rev. 762 p.762
1967.
COMMENT: Freedom of the Press: The Journalist's Right to Maintain the Secrecy of His Confidential
Sources, 45 Tul. L. Rev. 605 (1971)
45 Tul. L. Rev. 605 p.605
1968.
NOTE: Federal Procedure--Abstention--Federal Intervention in Municipal Prosecutions, 44 Tul. L. Rev.
392 (1970)
44 Tul. L. Rev. 392 p.392
1969.
NOTE: Constitutional Law--Student Academic Freedom--'State Action' and Private Universities, 44 Tul. L.
Rev. 184 (1969)
44 Tul. L. Rev. 184 p.184
1970.
SYMPOSIUM: The Cultural War over NEA Funding: Illogical Statutory Deconstruction Erodes Expressive
Freedom*, 34 Tulsa L.J. 233 (1999)
1971.
NOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-ABSTENTION & ABORTION: Application of the Undue Burden
Standard to "Certificate of Need" Regulations. Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Atchison, 126
F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 1997)., 21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 299 (1999)
21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 299 p.299
Page 236
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1972.
ESSAY: The Role of Reason in the Rule of Law., 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 779 (1989)
56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 779 p.789
1973.
COMMENT: Congressional Underappropriation for Civil Juries: Responding to the Attack on a
Constitutional Guarantee., 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 237 (1988)
1974.
46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 636
46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 636 p.636
1975.
44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 717
44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 717 p.719
1976.
ARTICLE: JUDGING IN CHAMBERS: THE POWERS OF A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1159 (2008)
76 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1159 p.1159
1977.
ARTICLE: JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION IN HYBRID LAW CASES, 75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 145 (2006)
75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 145 p.145
1978.
ON DIGNITY AND DEFERENCE: THE SUPREME COURT'S NEW FEDERALISM *, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev.
245 (2000)
68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 245 p.245
1979.
CASENOTE: DISCHARGEABILITY OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS UNDER CHAPTER 13
OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE: Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 110 S. Ct. 2126
(1990), 59 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1349 (1991)
1980.
ARTICLE: "ORDERED LIBERTY" AND SELF-RESTRAINT: THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE
SECOND JUSTICE HARLAN, 51 U. Cin. L. Rev. 545 (1982)
1981.
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)
1982.
ESSAY: JUSTICE SCALIA AND THE PRINTZ CASE: THE TRIALS OF AN OCCASIONAL ORIGINALIST,
70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 953 (1999)
1983.
ARTICLE: THE REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE V. THE CORPORATE-INTEREST MUZZLE: PHILIP MORRIS
COS., INC. V. ABC, INC., 22 U. Dayton L. Rev. 1 (1996)
1984.
LEGISLATIVE NOTES: THE ANTI-STALKING LAW OF OHIO: WILL IT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL
MUSTER?, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 749 (1994)
1985.
Comment: From Anti-Injunction to Radical Reform: Proposing a Unifying Approach to Class-Action
Page 237
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Adjudication, 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 (2008)
31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 155 p.155
1986.
NOTE: FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUITS -- FEDERAL
PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 127 (1986)
1987.
Note: Mama Knows Best: Frazier v. Winn Says Do as You're Told!, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 905 (2009)
63 U. Miami L. Rev. 905 p.905
1988.
ARTICLE: The Emerging State Court 1983 Action: A Procedural Review $(PART 1 OF 2$), 38 U. Miami
L. Rev. 381 (1984)
1989.
ARTICLE: The Emerging State Court 1983 Action: A Procedural Review $(PART 2 OF 2$), 38 U. Miami
L. Rev. 381 (1984)
1990.
ARTICLE: HARD-CORE PORNOGRAPHY: A PROPOSAL FOR A PER SE RULE, 21 U. Mich. J.L.
Reform 255 (1987)
1991.
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)
1992.
Symposium: The Second Founding: On Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 11 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1431
(2009)
1993.
COMMENT: UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS AND RESTRICTIVENESS IN THE CONTEXTUAL
ANALYSIS OF THE OBSCENITY STANDARD: A CRITICAL READING OF THE MILLER TEST
GENEALOGY, 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1207 (2005)
1994.
COMMENT: WHY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GOT IT RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTERS: A
SPOUSE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND STANDING IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE POLITICAL
ARENA, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 623 (2004)
1995.
SYMPOSIUM: INFORMAL REMARKS ON THE LIMITS OF FACIAL REVIEW IN COMPLEX CASES, 6
U. Pa. J. Const. L. 101 (2003)
1996.
ARTICLE: CENSORSHIP BY PROXY: THE FIRST AMENDMENT, INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES, AND
THE PROBLEM OF THE WEAKEST LINK, 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 11 (2006)
155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 11 p.11
1997.
ARTICLE: INVERTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 921 (2001)
149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 921 p.921
1998.
ARTICLE: ON THE RECEIVED WISDOM IN FEDERAL COURTS, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1111 (1999)
147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1111 p.1111
1999.
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
Page 238
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2000.
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
2001.
ARTICLE: PLAYING BY PORNOGRAPHY'S RULES: THE REGULATION OF SEXUAL EXPRESSION.,
143 U. Pa. L. Rev. 111 (1994)
143 U. Pa. L. Rev. 111 p.117
2002.
ARTICLE: RESHAPING SECTION 1983's ASYMMETRY., 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 (1992)
140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 755 p.771
2003.
ESSAY: JUSTICE BRENNAN AND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH: A FIRST AMENDMENT ODYSSEY.,
139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1333 (1991)
139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1333 p.1341
2004.
ARTICLE: SPECULATION AND REALITY: THE ROLE OF FACTS IN JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS., 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 655 (1988)
136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 655 p.699
2005.
ARTICLE: EXPERIMENTATION AND THE MARKETPLACE THEORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.,
136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 417 (1987)
136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 417 p.472
2006.
125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 266
125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 266 p.271
2007.
122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1071
122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1071 p.1120
2008.
THE RIGHT TO A SOAPBOX: A CRITIQUE OF SIMON & SCHUSTER v. MEMBERS OF THE NEW
YORK STATE CRIME VICTIMS BOARD, 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 501 (1994)
2009.
EX PARTE YOUNG SYMPOSIUM: A CENTENNIAL RECOGNITION: ARTICLE: EX PARTE YOUNG
AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, 1890-1917, 40 U. Tol. L. Rev. 931 (2009)
2010.
ARTICLE: ZONING THE VOYEUR DORM: REGULATING HOME-BASED VOYEUR WEB SITES
THROUGH LAND USE LAWS, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 929 (2001)
34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 929 p.929
2011.
ARTICLE: Putting Square Pegs in a Round Hole: Procedural Due Process and the Effect of Faith Healing
Exemptions on the Prosecution of Faith Healing Parents, 29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 43 (1994)
2012.
ARTICLE: Breaking Duverger's Law is not Illegal: Strategic Voting, the Internet and the 2000 Presidential
Election, 2001 UCLA J.L. & Tech. 6 (2001)
Page 239
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2013.
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.338
2014.
ARTICLE: Parity Reconsidered: Defining a Role for the Federal Judiciary, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 (1988)
36 UCLA L. Rev. 233 p.234
2015.
COMMENT: "HOLLOW RITUAL$(S$)": THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND SELF-REPORTING
SCHEMES., 34 UCLA L. Rev. 467 (1986)
2016.
COMMENT: THE JUSTICIABILITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE
GATHERING., 30 UCLA L. Rev. 976 (1983)
2017.
22 UCLA L. Rev. 141
22 UCLA L. Rev. 141 p.193
2018.
21 UCLA L. Rev. 29
21 UCLA L. Rev. 29 p.39
2019.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT: A Response to Soule and Weinstein: National Organization for Women v.
Scheidler Is Just Hard Facts Making Bad Law, 4 UCLA Women's L.J. 399 (1994)
2020.
ARTICLE: Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitutional Challenges
to Uninterpreted State Statutes, 2002 Utah L. Rev. 381 (2002)
2021.
ARTICLE: PROTECTING CHILDREN AND EXPRESSION: TOWARDS BETTER TAILORED CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY LAWS, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 471 (2001)
2022.
ESSAY: THE ABUSE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES: THE NEED FOR
INDEPENDENT CRIME LABORATORIES *, 4 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 439 (1997)
2023.
NOTE: THE BREADTH OF COMPLETE PREEMPTION: LIMITING THE DOCTRINE TO ITS ROOTS, 76
Va. L. Rev. 1601 (1990)
2024.
NOTE: DESUETUDE AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: A NEW CHALLENGE TO OBSOLETE LAWS.,
76 Va. L. Rev. 1057 (1990)
2025.
ARTICLE: THE IDEOLOGIES OF FEDERAL COURTS LAW., 74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988)
74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 p.1163
2026.
ARTICLE: FEDERALISM, STATE COURTS, AND SECTION 1983., 73 Va. L. Rev. 959 (1987)
73 Va. L. Rev. 959 p.1001
2027.
ARTICLE: SOME EFFECTS OF UNCERTAINTY ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL STANDARDS, 70 Va.
L. Rev. 965 (1984)
70 Va. L. Rev. 965 p.1001
2028.
ARTICLE: THE PROPER ROLE OF THE PRIOR RESTRAINT DOCTRINE IN FIRST AMENDMENT
Page 240
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
THEORY, 70 Va. L. Rev. 53 (1984)
70 Va. L. Rev. 53 p.71
2029.
68 Va. L. Rev. 203, 68 Va. L. Rev. 203
68 Va. L. Rev. 203 p.249
2030.
60 Va. L. Rev. 250
60 Va. L. Rev. 250 p.284
2031.
60 Va. L. Rev. 1
60 Va. L. Rev. 1 p.16
2032.
NOTE: Public Confidence Laws Gone Awry: A Modern Circuit Split Reveals that Some Federal Courts
Manipulate Standing Rules to Promulgate Severe First Amendment Restrictions on the Spouses and
Children of Public Employees, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 211 (2004)
57 Vand. L. Rev. 211 p.211
2033.
ARTICLE: Late Night Confessions in the Hart and Wechsler Hotel., 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993 (1994)
2034.
NOTE: State Restrictions on Violent Expression: The Impropriety of Extending an Obscenity Analysis., 46
Vand. L. Rev. 473 (1993)
2035.
ARTICLE: Tapping the State Court Resource., 44 Vand. L. Rev. 953 (1991)
2036.
NOTE: First Amendment Protection of Artistic Entertainment: Toward Reasonable Municipal Regulation of
Video Games., 36 Vand. L. Rev. 1223 (1983)
2037.
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: VAGUENESS AND INDECENCY, 3 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 221 (1996)
2038.
ARTICLE: Second-Class Citizens: Jews, Freedom of Speech, and Intolerance on Canadian University
Campuses, 12 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 1 (2006)
2039.
ARTICLE: ADVOCACY AND CONTEMPT -- PART TWO: CHARTING THE BOUNDARIES OF
CONTEMPT: ENSURING ADEQUATE BREATHING ROOM FOR ADVOCACY, 65 Wash. L. Rev. 743
(1990)
2040.
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)
2041.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE: THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LAWYERS: Denying Access to Legal
Representation: The Attack on the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, 4 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 33 (2000)
2042.
ARTICLE: THE OTHER ELECTION CONTROVERSY OF Y2K: CORE FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES
AND HIGH-TECH POLITICAL COALITIONS, 82 Wash. U. L. Q. 143 (2004)
82 Wash. U. L. Q. 143 p.143
2043.
NOTE: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDELINES TO LAW OFFICE SEARCHES: THE NEED TO
REPLACE THE "TROJAN HORSE" PRIVILEGE TEAM WITH NEUTRAL JUDICIAL REVIEW *, 43
Page 241
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Wayne L. Rev. 1855 (1997)
43 Wayne L. Rev. 1855 p.1855
2044.
NOTE AND COMMENT: PEOPLE EX REL. GALLO V. ACUNA: CITIES ALLOWED A NEW WEAPON IN
THEIR ARSENAL FOR THE CRACKDOWN ON GANGS, 19 Whittier L. Rev. 595 (1998)
2045.
ARTICLE: PERSPECTIVES ON THE LAW OF THE AMERICAN SIT-IN, 16 Whittier L. Rev. 499 (1995)
2046.
ANNUAL SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Survey of Selected Court Decisions:
Motor Vehicles and Transportation: O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia: The Commonwealth Court Finds No
Due Process Violations Arising From the City's Reorganization of Its System for Adjudicating Parking
Violations, 8 Widener J. Pub. L. 857 (1999)
2047.
ARTICLE: NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENTS AS CONTRACTS: STOLT-NIELSEN AND THE
QUESTION OF REMEDY FOR A PROSECUTOR'S BREACH, 2008 Wis. L. Rev. 25 (2008)
2008 Wis. L. Rev. 25 p.25
2048.
ARTICLE: STANDING IN THE WAY OF EQUALITY: HOW STATES USE STANDING DOCTRINE TO
INSULATE SODOMY LAWS FROM CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 29 (2001)
2001 Wis. L. Rev. 29 p.29
2049.
ARTICLE: THE CHRYSANTHEMUM, THE SWORD, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DISENTANGLING
CULTURE, COMMUNITY, AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, 1998 Wis. L. Rev. 905 (1998)
2050.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT COULD LEARN ABOUT THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT BY
READING PLAYBOY, 12 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 243 (2003)
2051.
NOTE: JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE FOR THE POOR?: A LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LEGAL SERVICES, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 827 (1998)
2052.
NOTE: FREEDOM TO SPEAK UNINTELLIGIBLY: THE FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED ENCRYPTION, 4 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1165 (1996)
2053.
ARTICLE: POLITICAL JUDGES AND POPULAR JUSTICE: A CONSERVATIVE VICTORY OR A
CONSERVATIVE DILEMMA?, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1543 (2008)
49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1543 p.1543
2054.
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
2055.
A CONSTITUTION OF COLLABORATION: PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL VALUES WITH SECONDLOOK RULES OF INTERBRANCH DIALOGUE, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1575 (2001)
42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1575 p.1575
2056.
ARTICLE: THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS ON THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, 30
Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 499 (1989)
2057.
NOTE: DOES BAR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION CONCERNING DISCHARGED DEBTS?, 29 Wm. &
Page 242
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Mary L. Rev. 579 (1988)
2058.
RUTGERS SCHOOL OF LAW - NEWARK CENTENNIAL ESSAY: SEIZING THE MOMENTS: THE
BEGINNINGS OF THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS LAW REPORTER AND A PERSONAL JOURNEY, 30
Women's Rights L. Rep. 592 (2009)
2059.
ESSAY: The Anti-Emergency Constitution, 113 Yale L.J. 1801 (2004)
113 Yale L.J. 1801 p.1801
2060.
ESSAY: Equity and Hierarchy: Reflections on the Harris Execution., 102 Yale L.J. 255 (1992)
102 Yale L.J. 255 p.263
2061.
ARTICLE: Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 Yale L.J. 853 (1991)
100 Yale L.J. 853 p.854
2062.
NOTE: Chilling Injuries as a Basis for Standing., 98 Yale L.J. 905 (1989)
2063.
BOOK REVIEW: Whose Rights? What Danger? Our Endangered Rights: The ACLU Report on Civil
Liberties Today. Edited by Norman Dorsen., 94 Yale L.J. 970 (1985)
2064.
ARTICLE: Abstention, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of the Judicial Function., 94 Yale L.J. 71
(1984)
94 Yale L.J. 71 p.87
2065.
NOTE: The Guilty But Mentally Ill Verdict and Due Process, 92 Yale L.J. 475 (1983)
2066.
88 Yale L.J. 1577
88 Yale L.J. 1577 p.1594
2067.
86 Yale L.J. 1103
86 Yale L.J. 1103 p.1103
2068.
86 Yale L.J. 1035
86 Yale L.J. 1035 p.1040
2069.
82 Yale L.J. 1363
82 Yale L.J. 1363 p.1394
2070.
Fora: The 2007 Freidrich A.von Hayek Lecture: Structures of Governance: "Fixing" International Law with
Lessons from Constitutional and Corporate Governance, 3 NYU J.L. & Liberty 423 (2008)
ANNOTATIONS ( 8 Citing Annotations )
2071.
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, sec. 18
2072.
Supreme Court's views as to overbreadth of legislation in connection with First Amendment rights, 45 L.
Page 243
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Ed. 2d 725, secs. 3, 5
2073.
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. 7, 8
2074.
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, sec. 12
2075.
Propriety of federal injunction against use in state criminal trial of evidence unlawfully obtained, 27 L. Ed.
2d 984, sec. 2
2076.
Supreme Court's definition and application of doctrine of "abstention" where questions of state law are
controlling in federal civil case, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1623, secs. 3, 7, 8
2077.
Indefiniteness of language as affecting validity of criminal legislation or judicial definition of common-law
crime--Supreme Court cases, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1231, secs. 1, 11.4
2078.
Discretion of federal court to remit relevant state issues to state court in which no action is pending, 3 L.
Ed. 2d 1827, supp sec. 3
TREATISE CITATIONS ( 25 Citing Sources )
2079.
5-22 Bender's Federal Practice Forms
2080.
1-11 California Criminal Defense Practice @ 11.09
2081.
2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.06
2082.
2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.10
2083.
2-3 Civil Rights Actions P 3.11
2084.
1B-42A Criminal Defense Techniques @ 42A.04
2085.
3-54 Criminal Defense Techniques @ 54.07
2086.
3-14 Gilson on Trademarks @ 14.02
2087.
4-22 Manual for Complex Litigation @ 22.04
2088.
1-13 Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure @ 13-3
2089.
4-22 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 22.04
2090.
17A-120 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 120.22
2091.
17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.03
2092.
17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.04
2093.
17A-121 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 121.06
2094.
17A-122 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil @ 122.05
2095.
1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.23
Page 244
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2096.
1-2 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.40
2097.
2-14 Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure @ 14.73
2098.
4-155 Moore's Federal Rules Pamphlet @ 2283.2
2099.
4-19E Nimmer on Copyright @ 19E.03
2100.
1-9 Punitive Damages @ 9.11
2101.
1-1 Representing the Child Client P 1.04
2102.
1-13 Virginia Remedies @ 13.04
2103.
1-13 Virginia Remedies @ 13.11
SECONDARY SOURCES ( 1 Citing Source )
2104.
53 A.B.A.J. 539
53 A.B.A.J. 539 p.540
BRIEFS ( 208 Citing Briefs )
2105.
UNITED STATES v. STEVENS, 2008 U.S. Briefs 769, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 603 (U.S. July 27,
2009)
2106.
BOWEN v. CHEUVRONT, 2008 U.S. Briefs 208, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1391 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2008)
2107.
GRANITE STATE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. v. CITY OF ROSWELL, 2008 U.S. Briefs 50, 2008
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1979 (U.S. July 9, 2008)
2108.
STROMAN REALTY, INC. v. MARTINEZ, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1096, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2646
(U.S. Apr. 25, 2008)
2109.
DAVIS v. FEC, 2007 U.S. Briefs 320, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 394 (U.S. Apr. 11, 2008)
2110.
DAVIS v. FEC, 2007 U.S. Briefs 320, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 266 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2008)
2111.
WISNIEWSKI v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE WEEDSPORT CENT. SCH. DIST. & RICHARD MABBETT,
2007 U.S. Briefs 987, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2494 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2008)
2112.
COVENANT MEDIA OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 587,
2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3029 (U.S. Nov. 30, 2007)
2113.
COVENANT MEDIA OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON, 2007 U.S. Briefs 587,
2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3028 (U.S. Nov. 1, 2007)
2114.
FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 969, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 270
(U.S. Mar. 23, 2007)
2115.
FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 969, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 267
(U.S. Mar. 22, 2007)
Page 245
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2116.
WELLS v. LAMZ, 2006 U.S. Briefs 660975, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1664 (U.S. Feb. 8, 2007)
2117.
GRANITE STATE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 2006 U.S. Briefs
950436, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1399 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2007)
2118.
MILLER v. CONCHATTA, INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 77144, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2823 (U.S. Dec.
14, 2006)
2119.
CARMOUCHE v. CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, 2006 U.S. Briefs 861915, 2006 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 2546 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2006)
2120.
STOLT-NIELSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2006 U.S. Briefs 97A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1915 (U.S. Sept. 20, 2006)
2121.
STOLT-NIELSEN v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 97A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1913 (U.S.
Aug. 21, 2006)
2122.
CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE, INC. v. FEC, 2005 U.S. Briefs 294263, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1827 (U.S. Aug. 18, 2006)
2123.
MIRANDA v. GONZALES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 811941, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2356 (U.S. Aug. 9,
2006)
2124.
STOLT-NIELSEN S.A. v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 97A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1526
(U.S. July 20, 2006)
2125.
AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ACTIVISTS v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE
COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1083, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3619 (U.S. Mar.
27, 2006)
2126.
BEUSTRING v. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N, 2005 U.S. Briefs 997A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 989 (U.S.
Feb. 6, 2006)
2127.
SEEGARS v. GONZALES, 2005 U.S. Briefs 365A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 510 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2006)
2128.
GOLIN v. ALLENBY, 2005 U.S. Briefs 791B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2055 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)
2129.
RANDALL v. SORRELL, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1528, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 887 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2005)
2130.
AYOTTE v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1144, 2005
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 529 (U.S. Aug. 8, 2005)
2131.
AYOTTE v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1144, 2005
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 536 (U.S. Aug. 8, 2005)
2132.
MURRAY v. EARLE, 2005 U.S. Briefs 396, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1380 (U.S. Aug. 1, 2005)
2133.
DENNY'S, INC. v. CAKE, 2004 U.S. Briefs 6, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 478 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2004)
2134.
ASHCROFT v. ACLU, 2003 U.S. Briefs 218, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1402 (U.S. Aug. 11, 2003)
2135.
VIRGINIA v. HICKS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 371, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 459 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2003)
2136.
VIRGINIA v. HICKS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 371, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 460 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2003)
Page 246
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2137.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. KEVIN LAMONT HICKS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 371, 2003 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 367 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2003)
2138.
VIRGINIA v. HICKS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 371, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 364 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2003)
2139.
NIKE, INC. v. KASKY, 2002 U.S. Briefs 575, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 311 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2003)
2140.
WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUND. v. LEGAL FOUND. OF WASHINGTON, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1325, 2002
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 597 (U.S. Oct. 18, 2002)
2141.
VIRGINIA v. BLACK, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1107, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 528 (U.S. Sept. 9, 2002)
2142.
VIRGINIA v. HICKS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 371, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 851 (U.S. Sept. 5, 2002)
2143.
McCONNELL v. FEC, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1674, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 745 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2002)
2144.
ELDRED v. ASHCROFT, 2001 U.S. Briefs 618, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 271 (U.S. May 20, 2002)
2145.
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA v. KELLY, 2001 U.S. Briefs 521, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
35 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2002)
2146.
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA v. KELLY, 2001 U.S. Briefs 521, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1109 (U.S. Sept. 24, 2001)
2147.
CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. v. CITY OF WAUKESHA, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1680, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 573 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2000)
2148.
STENBERG v. CARHART, 1999 U.S. Briefs 830, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 179 (U.S. Feb. 29, 2000)
2149.
CITY OF ERIE v. PAP'S A.M., 1998 U.S. Briefs 1161, 1999 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 135 (U.S. Sept. 30,
1999)
2150.
CITY OF ERIE, et al., Petitioners, vs. PAP'S A.M., t/d/b/a "KANDYLAND," Respondent., 1998 U.S. Briefs
1161, 1999 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 148 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1999)
2151.
City of Erie, Petitioner, v. Pap's A.M., Respondent, 1998 U.S. Briefs 1161, 1999 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
177 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1999)
2152.
RENO v. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMM., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1252, 1998 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 768 (U.S. Sept. 11, 1998)
2153.
JANET RENO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, ET
AL., 1997 U.S. Briefs 1252, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 393 (U.S. July 18, 1998)
2154.
ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden, et al., Petitioners, v. TROY A. ASHMUS, Respondent., 1997 U.S. Briefs
391, 1998 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 20 (U.S. Jan. 16, 1998)
2155.
CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, 1995 U.S. Briefs 2074, 1997 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 185 (U.S. Jan. 10,
1997)
2156.
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT v. CITY OF CUMMING, 1996 U.S. Briefs 724, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1140 (U.S. Nov. 7, 1996)
2157.
RENO v. SHEA, 1996 U.S. Briefs 595, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 661 (U.S. Oct. 15, 1996)
Page 247
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2158.
BLAND v. FESSLER, 1996 U.S. Briefs 510, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1141 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1996)
2159.
WISCONSIN, Petitioner, v. TODD MITCHELL, Respondent., 1992 U.S. Briefs 515, 1993 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 180 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1993)
2160.
WISCONSIN, Petitioner, v. TODD MITCHELL, Respondent., 1992 U.S. Briefs 515, 1993 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 226 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1993)
2161.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, Petitioner, v. TODD MITCHELL, Respondent., 1992 U.S. Briefs 515, 1993 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 162 (U.S. Jan. 28, 1993)
2162.
HAROLD RAY WADE, JR., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., 1991 U.S. Briefs
5771, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 359 (U.S. Mar. 13, 1992)
2163.
ANKENBRANDT v. RICHARDS, 1991 U.S. Briefs 367, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 240 (U.S. Mar. 4,
1992)
2164.
FORSYTH COUNTY, GEORGIA Petitioner v. THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT Respondent, 1991 U.S.
Briefs 538, 1992 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 370 (U.S. Feb. 27, 1992)
2165.
R.A.V., Petitioner, v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, Respondent., 1990 U.S. Briefs 7675, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 601 (U.S. Aug. 26, 1991)
2166.
R.A.V., Petitioner, v. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, Respondent., 1990 U.S. Briefs 7675, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 609 (U.S. Aug. 23, 1991)
2167.
R.A.V., Petitioner, v. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, Respondent., 1990 U.S. Briefs 7675, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 610 (U.S. July 25, 1991)
2168.
DAN COHEN, Petitioner, v. COWLES MEDIA COMPANY, d/b/a Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company'
and NORTHWEST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Respondents., 1990 U.S. Briefs 634, 1991 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 749 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1991)
2169.
MICHAEL BARNES, Prosecuting Attorney of St. Joseph County, Indiana: LINLEY E. PEARSON, Attorney
General of Indiana, and INDIANA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Petitioners. v. GLEN
THEATRE, INC., et al.; DARLENE MILLER, et al.; and CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, et al.
Respondents., 1990 U.S. Briefs 26, 1990 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 272 (U.S. Dec. 14, 1990)
2170.
SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. v. PINHAS, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1679, 1990 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 623 (U.S.
Aug. 3, 1990)
2171.
BARNES v. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 1990 U.S. Briefs 26, 1990 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 416 (U.S. July 2,
1990)
2172.
BOARD OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. SCHS. v. DOWELL, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1080, 1990 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1070 (U.S. June 1, 1990)
2173.
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 1988 U.S. Briefs 5986, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1140 (U.S. Sept. 18, 1989)
2174.
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 1988 U.S. Briefs 5986, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1141 (U.S. Sept. 15, 1989)
2175.
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 1988 U.S. Briefs 5986, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1118 (U.S. Sept. 7, 1989)
2176.
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 1988 U.S. Briefs 5986, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1144 (U.S. Aug. 16, 1989)
Page 248
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2177.
WHITMORE v. ARKANSAS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 7146, 1989 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 104 (U.S. Aug. 15,
1989)
2178.
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 415 (U.S. Mar. 31,
1989)
2179.
NEW ORLEANS PUB. SERV. v. COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 348, 1989 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 421 (U.S. Feb. 27, 1989)
2180.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSSETTS, Petitioner, DOUGLAS L. OAKES Respondent., 1987 U.S.
Briefs 1651, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 363 (U.S. Sept. 16, 1988)
2181.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel, Petitioner, v. JAN GRAHAM, et al., Respondents., 1988 U.S. Briefs 266,
1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 648 (U.S. Sept. 2, 1988)
2182.
FW/PBS, Inc. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 1987 U.S. Briefs 2012, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 108 (U.S. July
13, 1988)
2183.
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC. v. INDIANA, 1987 U.S. Briefs 470, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1122 (U.S.
July 7, 1988)
2184.
EU v. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENT. COMM., 1987 U.S. Briefs 1269, 1988 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1545 (U.S. June 27, 1988)
2185.
Berry v. CITY OF DALLAS, 1988 U.S. Briefs 49, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 105 (U.S. June 13, 1988)
2186.
M.J.R., INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 1987 U.S. Briefs 2051, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 112 (U.S. June
13, 1988)
2187.
FW/PBS, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 1987 U.S. Briefs 2012, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 110 (U.S. June
9, 1988)
2188.
TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASS'N v. GARLAND INDEP. SCH. DIST., 1987 U.S. Briefs 1759, 1988 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 692 (U.S. Apr. 25, 1988)
2189.
FRISBY v. BRAUN, 1987 U.S. Briefs 168, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 954 (U.S. Mar. 26, 1988)
2190.
Frisby v. Schultz, 1987 U.S. Briefs 168, 1988 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 962 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1988)
2191.
EU v. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENT. COMM., 1987 U.S. Briefs 1269, 1988 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1546 (U.S. Jan. 27, 1988)
2192.
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASS'N, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 1986 U.S. Briefs 1836, 1988 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1620 (U.S. Jan. 13, 1988)
2193.
VIRGINIA v. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASS'N, INC., 1986 U.S. Briefs 1034, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1107 (U.S. July 2, 1987)
2194.
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASS'N, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 1986 U.S. Briefs 1836, 1987 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 940 (U.S. May 15, 1987)
2195.
VIRGINIA v. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASS'N, INC., 1986 U.S. Briefs 1034, 1987 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1105 (U.S. Apr. 20, 1987)
Page 249
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2196.
PENNZOIL CO. v. TEXACO, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 1798, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 976 (U.S. Sept.
5, 1986)
2197.
EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 1985 U.S. Briefs 1513, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 856 (U.S. June 19,
1986)
2198.
CERBONE v. BUICK, 1984 U.S. Briefs 1947, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 578 (U.S. Apr. 12, 1986)
2199.
NEW YORK ex rel. ARCARA v. CLOUD BOOKS, INC., 1985 U.S. Briefs 437, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 508 (U.S. Dec. 30, 1985)
2200.
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL;
MARK LEBOW, Individually and as Chairman of the New York City Civil Service Commission; and JUAN
ORTIZ, Individually and as Director of the New York City Department of Personnel, and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellants, vs. EDUARDO SOTO-LOPEZ and ELIEZAR
BAEZ-HERNANDEZ, Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1803, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 99 (U.S. June 6,
1985)
2201.
AG OF NEW YORK v. SOTO-LOPEZ, 1984 U.S. Briefs 1803, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 98 (U.S. May
15, 1985)
2202.
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)
2203.
CITY OF RENTON v. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC., 1984 U.S. Briefs 1360, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1153 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1985)
2204.
BROCKETT v. STOKANE ARCADES, INC., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1985 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1440 (U.S.
Jan. 5, 1985)
2205.
BOARD OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. NATIONAL, 1983 U.S. Briefs 2030, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1136 (U.S. Dec. 24, 1984)
2206.
BOARD OF EDUC. OKLAHOMA CITY v. NATIONAL, 1983 U.S. Briefs 2030, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1134 (U.S. Dec. 19, 1984)
2207.
BOARD OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. NATIONAL, 1983 U.S. Briefs 2030, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1133 (U.S. Dec. 18, 1984)
2208.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Appellant, v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., Appellees; KENNETH O.
EIKENBERRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington, et al., Appellants, v.
J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1335
(U.S. Nov. 15, 1984)
2209.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Appellant, v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., Appellees; KENNETH
EIKENBERRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington, et al., Appellants, v.
J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1338
(U.S. Nov. 15, 1984)
2210.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Appellant, vs. SPOKANE ARCADES,
INC., et al., Appellees; KENNETH EIKENBERRY, Attorney General for the State of Washington, et al.,
Appellants, vs. J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1339 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1984)
Page 250
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2211.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Appellant, v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., Appellees; KENNETH
EIKENBERRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington, et. al., Appellants,
v. J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1340
(U.S. Nov. 15, 1984)
2212.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Appellant, vs. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., Appellees; KENNETH
EIKENBERRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington, et al., Appellants,
vs. J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1332
(U.S. Aug. 9, 1984)
2213.
DONALD C. BROCKETT, Appellant, V. Spokane Arcades, Inc., A Washington Corporation; Playtime
Theaters, Inc., A Washington Corporation; And J-R Distributors, Inc., A Washington Corporation, et al;
Respondents., 1984 U.S. Briefs 28, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1341 (U.S. July 5, 1984)
2214.
KENNETH EIKENBERRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington, et al.,
Appellants, v. J-R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Appellees., 1984 U.S. Briefs 143, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1333 (U.S. July 3, 1984)
2215.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, and
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Appellants and FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Intervenor Appellant v.
NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and FUND FOR A CONSERVATIVE
MAJORITY, Appellees, 1983 U.S. Briefs 1122, 1984 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 929 (U.S. Jan. 6, 1984)
2216.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, APPELLANT, v. NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL
ACTION COMMITTEE, ET AL., APPELLEES., 1983 U.S. Briefs 1032, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1170
(U.S. Dec. 22, 1983)
2217.
DANZIGER v. HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLES. & BARTENDERS INT'L UNION LOCAL 54, 1983 U.S.
Briefs 498, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 960 (U.S. Sept. 23, 1983)
2218.
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)
2219.
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)
2220.
CALDER v. JONES, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1401, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 214 (U.S. June 17, 1983)
2221.
CALDER v. JONES, 1982 U.S. Briefs 1401, 1983 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 220 (U.S. June 17, 1983)
2222.
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)
2223.
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)
2224.
UNITED STATES v. GRACE, 1981 U.S. Briefs 1863, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 597 (U.S. Nov. 15,
1982)
2225.
SECRETARY OF STATE OF MARYLAND v. JOSEPH H. MUNSON CO., 1982 U.S. Briefs 914, 1982 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 20 (U.S. Nov. 3, 1982)
2226.
DONALD T. REGAN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. TIME, INC., 1982 U.S.
Page 251
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
Briefs 729, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 120 (U.S. Oct. 27, 1982)
2227.
KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 1981 U.S. Briefs 1320, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1335 (U.S. July 23, 1982)
2228.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE, an agency established by the Supreme Court of New
Jersey, Petitioner, vs. GARDEN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION and THE NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF
BLACK WOMEN LAWYERS, both corporations organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey;
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BLACK LAWYERS, a corporation organized under the laws of the District
of Columbia; and LENNOX HINDS, Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 460, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
170 (U.S. Mar. 15, 1982)
2229.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, against PAUL IRA FERBER, Respondent.,
1981 U.S. Briefs 55, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1122 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1982)
2230.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, vs. PAUL IRA FERBER, Respondent., 1981
U.S. Briefs 55, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1123 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1982)
2231.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner, v. EDWARD SADLOWSKI, JR.,
JOSEPH SAMARGIA, EDWARD SADLOWSKI, SR., LEONARD S. RUBENSTEIN, and JAMES MILLER,
Respondents., 1981 U.S. Briefs 395, 1982 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1017 (U.S. Feb. 1, 1982)
2232.
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)
2233.
PERRY EDUC. ASS'N v. PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS ASS'N, 1981 U.S. Briefs 896, 1981 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1365 (U.S. Nov. 12, 1981)
2234.
CITY OF MESQUITE v. ALADDIN'S CASTLE, INC., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1577, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
2290 (U.S. Sept. 8, 1981)
2235.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY ETHICS COMM. v. GARDEN STATE BAR ASS'N, 1981 U.S. Briefs 460, 1981 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1202 (U.S. Sept. 5, 1981)
2236.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. PAUL IRA FERBER, Respondent., 1981
U.S. Briefs 55, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1272 (U.S. Aug. 13, 1981)
2237.
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Petitioner, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY and
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1925, 1981 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 590 (U.S. May 15, 1981)
2238.
CITY OF MESQUITE v. ALADDIN'S CASTLE, INC., 1980 U.S. Briefs 1577, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
2282 (U.S. Mar. 13, 1981)
2239.
FLYNT v. OHIO, 1980 U.S. Briefs 420, 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1041 (U.S. Feb. 23, 1981)
2240.
STEAGALD v. UNITED STATES, 1979 U.S. Briefs 6777, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2265 (U.S. Nov.
20, 1980)
2241.
FLYNT v. OHIO, 1980 U.S. Briefs 420, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1878 (U.S. Oct. 27, 1980)
2242.
VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE v. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH &
STATE, INC., 1980 U.S. Briefs 327, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1374 (U.S. Aug. 30, 1980)
2243.
NOEL CHANDLER and ROBERT GRANGER, APPELLANTS, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.,
1979 U.S. Briefs 1260, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2620 (U.S. Aug. 20, 1980)
Page 252
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2244.
CALIFORNIA MED. ASS'N v. FEC, 1979 U.S. Briefs 1952, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1576 (U.S. June
12, 1980)
2245.
FCC v. WNCN, 1979 U.S. Briefs 824, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2503 (U.S. June 6, 1980)
2246.
VANCE v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1588, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1626
(U.S. Apr. 10, 1980)
2247.
HARRIS v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPS. CORP., 1979 U.S. Briefs 1268, 1980 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2434 (U.S. Mar. 19, 1980)
2248.
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)
2249.
ABC, INC. v. WNCN LISTENERS GUILD, 1979 U.S. Briefs 826, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1026 (U.S.
Nov. 26, 1979)
2250.
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)
2251.
VANCE v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1588, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1285
(U.S. Sept. 6, 1979)
2252.
VANCE v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., 1978 U.S. Briefs 1588, 1979 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1189
(U.S. Apr. 17, 1979)
2253.
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENV'T, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1335, 1979 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1294 (U.S. Mar. 30, 1979)
2254.
BROWN v. GLINES, 1978 U.S. Briefs 1006, 1978 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 71 (U.S. Dec. 20, 1978)
2255.
United States v. Schulz, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 3729, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 693 (2d Cir. Oct.
22, 2007)
2256.
United States v. Schulz, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 3729, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 694 (2d Cir. Oct.
18, 2007)
2257.
In re WORLDCOM, INC. SECS. LITIG. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 2275A,
2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 101 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2004)
2258.
RETIREMENT SYS. OF ALABAMA v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECS. INC., 2004
U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 2275A, 2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 100 (2d Cir. July 21, 2004)
2259.
In re WORLDCOM, INC. SECS. LITIG. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 2275A,
2004 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 98 (2d Cir. June 10, 2004)
2260.
CONTINENTAL INS. CO. v. ALLIANZ, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7438, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS
51 (2d Cir. July 12, 2002)
2261.
HAWKINS v. PORITZ, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4361, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1518 (3d Cir. Dec.
16, 2005)
2262.
KNIGHT v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASS'N, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3430, 2005 U.S. 3rd
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1876 (3d Cir. Nov. 21, 2005)
Page 253
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2263.
KNIGHT v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASS'N, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3430, 2005 U.S. 3rd
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1875 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2005)
2264.
FRIENDS & RESIDENTS OF ST. THOMAS TWP., INC. v. ST. THOMAS DEV., 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
2378, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1364 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2005)
2265.
FRIENDS & RESIDENTS OF ST. THOMAS TWP., INC. v. ST. THOMAS DEV., 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
2378, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1847 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2005)
2266.
181 SOUTH INC. v. FISCHER, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 130833, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 894 (3d
Cir. Aug. 1, 2005)
2267.
FRIENDS & RESIDENTS OF ST. THOMAS TWP., INC. v. ST. THOMAS DEV., 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
2378, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1846 (3d Cir. July 5, 2005)
2268.
STOLT-NIELSEN v. UNITED STATES, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 1480, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS
243 (3d Cir. June 20, 2005)
2269.
181 SOUTH INC. v. FISCHER, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 130833, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 893 (3d
Cir. June 17, 2005)
2270.
LUI v. COMMISSION ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS OF DELAWARE, 2003 U.S.
3rd Cir. Briefs 2437B, 2003 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 165 (3d Cir. July 22, 2003)
2271.
GIBSON v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF WILMINGTON, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3952, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 200 (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2002)
2272.
DIET DRUGS MDL v. MEDEVA, 2000 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 1393, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 25 (3d
Cir. Jan. 10, 2001)
2273.
SOUTH CAROLINA CITIZENS FOR LIFE, INC. v. KRAWCHECK, 2007 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 2057, 2008
U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 238 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)
2274.
DURK v. LEAVITT, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1937, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 220 (4th Cir. Dec. 27,
2005)
2275.
DURK v. LEAVITT, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1937, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 218 (4th Cir. Nov. 11,
2005)
2276.
NEWBY v. ENRON, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20043, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 394 (5th Cir. July 13,
2007)
2277.
NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 200 (5th Cir. May
15, 2002)
2278.
Newby v. Enron Corp., 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 198 (5th Cir. May
14, 2002)
2279.
NEWBY v. ENRON, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20343, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (5th Cir. Apr.
27, 2002)
2280.
PRIME MEDIA, INC. v. CITY OF BRENTWOOD, 2005 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 6343, 2007 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 5 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2007)
Page 254
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2281.
MIDWEST MEDIA PROP. v. SYMMES, 2006 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 3828, 2007 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
117 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2007)
2282.
PRIME MEDIA, INC. v. CITY OF BRENTWOOD, 2005 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 6343, 2006 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 183 (6th Cir. May 25, 2006)
2283.
PRIME MEDIA INC. v. CITY OF BRENTWOOD, 2005 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 6343, 2006 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 181 (6th Cir. Jan. 19, 2006)
2284.
In re BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. TIRES PRODS. LIAB. LITIG. v. FORD MOTOR CO., 2003 U.S.
7th Cir. Briefs 1379, 2003 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 358 (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2003)
2285.
ANDERSON-TULLY v. DUSTIN MCDANIEL, AG OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir.
Briefs 3469, 2008 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 64 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2008)
2286.
Advantage Media v. City of Eden Prairie, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1035, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
201 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2006)
2287.
ADVANTAGE MEDIA v. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1035, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 203 (8th Cir. Feb. 23, 2006)
2288.
PREMINGER v. PEAKE, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 962498, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 485 (9th Cir.
June 10, 2008)
2289.
AMERICAN BUDDHA v. CITY OF ASHLAND, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35721, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 25 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2008)
2290.
AMERICAN BUDDHA v. CITY OF ASHLAND, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35721, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 27 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2008)
2291.
METRO LIGHTS v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 55179, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 1010 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2007)
2292.
YAHOO!, INC. v. LA LIGUE CONTRE LE RACISME, 2001 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 17424, 2002 U.S. 9th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 181 (9th Cir. May 6, 2002)
2293.
METABOLIFE v. WORNICK, 1999 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 56814, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 101 (9th
Cir. May 12, 2000)
2294.
W.N.J. v. YOCOM, 2000 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 4124, 2000 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 160 (10th Cir. Sept.
18, 2000)
2295.
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEP'T RESERVE OFFICERS v. RAMSEY, 2007 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 7072,
2007 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 3 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 9, 2007)
2296.
I4I v. MICROSOFT CORP., 2009 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1504, 2009 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 5 (Fed. Cir.
Aug. 25, 2009)
2297.
In re REYES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 20689, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1885 (S.D. Fla. July 30,
2007)
2298.
In re REYES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 20689, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1884 (S.D. Fla. June 18,
2007)
2299.
DOES v. VILL. OF MAMARONECK, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 3243, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
Page 255
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
1628 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2006)
2300.
In re Jackson v. Clarson McDow, Jr., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 130, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 623
(D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2006)
2301.
CITY OF SKAGWAY v. ROBERTSON, 2006 AK S. Ct. Briefs 11702, 2005 AK S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 267
(Alaska July 1, 2005)
2302.
LAIDLAW v. CALIFORNIA, 2008 CA S. Ct. Briefs 61819, 2008 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1023 (Cal. Mar.
17, 2008)
2303.
KIDS v. CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASS'N, 2004 CA S. Ct. Briefs 17156, 2005 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 141
(Cal. Apr. 15, 2005)
2304.
KIDS v. CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASS'N, 2004 CA S. Ct. Briefs 17156, 2004 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 160
(Cal. May 19, 2004)
2305.
3570 EAST FOOTHILL BLVD., Inc. v. CITY OF PASADENA, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 181774, 2006 CA
App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2142 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 25, 2006)
2306.
FLORIDA v. RODRIGUEZ, 2004 FL S. Ct. Briefs 390, 2004 FL S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 697 (Fla. May 26,
2004)
2307.
GRANITE STATE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. v. CITY OF ROSWELL, 2007 GA S. Ct. Briefs 71885,
2008 GA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 41 (Ga. Mar. 20, 2008)
2308.
B & G CRANE SERV. v. DUVIC, 2003 LA App. Ct. Briefs 1798, 2005 LA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 150
(La.App. 1 Cir. Oct. 26, 2005)
2309.
GILBERT v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, 2007 NC S. Ct. Briefs 4107, 2007 NC S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
102 (N.C. Oct. 29, 2007)
2310.
Pennsylvania Pride, Inc. v. Township of Southampton, 2005 PA CW. Ct. Briefs 72005E, 2005 PA CW. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 45 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 1, 2005)
2311.
STATE v. REEP, 2006 WA App. Ct. Briefs 48852, 2006 WA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 107 (Wash. Ct. App.
July 27, 2006)
2312.
The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
MOTIONS ( 64 Citing Motions )
2313.
,v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Motions 826886, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Motions
LEXIS 20 (3d Cir. June 26, 2006)
2314.
DILLAN v. CITY OF STOCKTON, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1469, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
10360 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2009)
2315.
ELEVATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. CITY OF MORRISTOWN, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
597850, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 31774 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2009)
2316.
Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 67892
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2008)
2317.
CORCORAN v. EAST GOSHEN TWP., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 4682, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
Page 256
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
LEXIS 64676 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2008)
2318.
Project Vote v. Madison County Bd. of Elections, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2266, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 19243 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2008)
2319.
AVCO CORP. v. CHERRY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 502116, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 47671
(E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2008)
2320.
AVCO CORP. v. CHERRY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 502116, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 61597
(E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2008)
2321.
DREAMLAND AMUSEMENTS, INC. v. CUOMO, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 87100, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 19142 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008)
2322.
DREAMLAND AMUSEMENTS, INC. v. CUOMO, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 87100, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 19141 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008)
2323.
ORD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 704, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
31377 (D.D.C. May 21, 2008)
2324.
ORD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 704, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
31376 (D.D.C. May 14, 2008)
2325.
ROBERTS v. BABKIEWICZ, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 519847, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
11334 (D. Conn. May 11, 2008)
2326.
SKYNET CORP. v. SLATTERY, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 226451, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
13634 (D.N.H. Apr. 21, 2008)
2327.
RTM Media v. CITY OF HOUSTON, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2944, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
23210 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2008)
2328.
CORNISH v. DUDAS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 50087, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 772 (D.D.C.
Jan. 4, 2008)
2329.
CORNISH v. DUDAS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 50087, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46238
(D.D.C. Dec. 31, 2007)
2330.
WHOLEY v. TYRELL, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11927, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 71113 (D.
Mass. Dec. 12, 2007)
2331.
AMERICAN NAT'L v. UNITED WAY CALIFORNIA CAPITAL REGION, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
431036, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 56080 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007)
2332.
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 88846 (D. Del. Oct. 3, 2007)
2333.
GET OUTDOORS II v. CITY OF EL CAJON, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 4030, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 27229 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2007)
2334.
GILSTRAP v. RADIANZ LTD., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 57947, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
75985 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007)
2335.
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 88845 (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2007)
Page 257
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2336.
LAREDO FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 911 v. CITY OF LAREDO, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 4134, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53323 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)
2337.
GRIFFEN v. ARKANSAS JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE & DISABILITY COMM'N, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
78090, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 81903 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 2007)
2338.
GRIFFEN v. ARKANSAS JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE & DISABILITY COMM'N, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
78090, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 81902 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 15, 2007)
2339.
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)
2340.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION v. CHERTOFF, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 964335, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 41091 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2007)
2341.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION v. CHERTOFF, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 964335, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 41099 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2007)
2342.
United States v. Clarkson, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2734, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6505
(D.S.C. June 20, 2007)
2343.
DeANGELO BROS. v. HORNE, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 864990, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
45287 (W.D. Mo. June 1, 2007)
2344.
VILLAS v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5580, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 36475 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2007)
2345.
ALLEGRINO v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 301, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 24582 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2007)
2346.
UNITED STATES v. SCHULZ, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 714680, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
11002 (N.D.N.Y May 24, 2007)
2347.
VULCAN POWER CO. v. DAVENPORT POWER, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6105, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 32493 (D. Or. May 22, 2007)
2348.
MANGINO v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMM'N, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71350, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 35696 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2007)
2349.
KNIGHT v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASS'N, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 732899, 2007
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 19792 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2007)
2350.
RAMIREZ v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 65,
2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 3090 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2007)
2351.
REESE BROS. v. USPS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 46050, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 65675
(D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2006)
2352.
GOLD DIGGERS, LLC v. TOWN OF BERLIN, CT., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 732, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 39211 (D. Conn. July 28, 2006)
2353.
STRATTON v. GLACIER INS. ADMINISTRATORS, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6213, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 32925 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2006)
Page 258
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
2354.
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)
2355.
McQUEARY v. STUMBO, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 24F, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27953
(E.D. Ky. June 21, 2006)
2356.
ARMSTEAD v. NAGIN, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6438, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 22513 (E.D.
La. May 30, 2006)
2357.
KINDERSTART.COM v. GOOGLE, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2057A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 17699 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)
2358.
COVENANT MEDIA OF S.C., L.L.C. v. CITY OF N. CHARLESTON, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1394A,
2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6274 (D.S.C. May 8, 2006)
2359.
Tuvalu v. WOODFORD, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 41724, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 21212
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2006)
2360.
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)
2361.
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)
2362.
GOLD DIGGERS, LLC v. TOWN OF BERLIN, CT., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 732, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 39209 (D. Conn. Apr. 11, 2006)
2363.
HEENAN v. LEO, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 958, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 68867 (D.D.C.
Mar. 8, 2006)
2364.
ALSTON v. ADVANCED BRANDS & IMPORTING CO., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 72629, 2005 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 24240 ( E.D. Mich. Dec. 15, 2005)
2365.
ABC v. BLACKWELL, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 750, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32906 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 1, 2005)
2366.
ANAND v. U.S. NSA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 476935, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 54568
(N.D.N.Y July 26, 2005)
2367.
ABC v. BLACKWELL, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 750, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32902 (S.D.
Ohio May 2, 2005)
2368.
EISENBERG v. ANHEUSER, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1081, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14305
(N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2005)
2369.
In re REZULIN PROD. LIAB. LITIG., 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2843, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 15449 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2004)
2370.
KLABO v. EASY HEAT, INC., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 877, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9547
(N.D. Ind. Dec. 30, 2003)
2371.
MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASS'N OF ANN ARBOR v. ASHCROFT, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 72913, 2003
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 13966 ( E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2003)
2372.
MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASS'N OF ANN ARBOR v. ASHCROFT, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 72913, 2003
Page 259
SHEPARD'SÆ - 380 U.S. 479 - 2380 Citing References
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 13964 ( E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2003)
2373.
CURRY v. FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 10895, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 15692 (D. Mass. May 16, 2003)
2374.
GE v. LEGION INS. CO., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7713, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6621 (E.D.
Pa. Nov. 12, 2002)
2375.
In re PROPULSID PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6628 (E.D. La. Nov. 16, 2001)
2376.
In re: PROPULSID, PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1355, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6052 (E.D. La. Nov. 16, 2001)
PLEADINGS ( 4 Citing Pleadings )
2377.
Saddas v. (1) The City of San Diego, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 227552, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 27723 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2009)
2378.
Woodroffe v. McCollum, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 83830, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6488
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2008)
2379.
REESE BROS. v. USPS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 434B, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6104
(D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2006)
2380.
BROADCAST TEAM, INC. v. FTC, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 34222, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 16320 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2005)