Shepard's Batch Delivery Time of Request: Monday, July 31, 2006 15

Home , King Videocable

118V7K

Print Request: Shepard's Batch Delivery

Time of Request: Monday, July 31, 2006 15:43:41 EST

Number of Lines: 26514 Print Number: 1842:111129776

Client ID/Project Name:

Note:

Research Information:

Shepard's

Send to: LAWRENCE, 118V7K LAWRENCE LAW LIBRARY 2 APPLETON ST LAWRENCE, MA 01840-1573 Page 1

Shepard's Batch Delivery Request Report

Shepard's Citation: 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 --FULL References: 3568 Restricted: No FOCUS Terms: No Deliver Shepard's Report: Yes --Completed Deliver Text of Shepardized Cite: Yes --Completed Selected Citing Documents: None Selected Date of Request: 07/31/2006

Citing Full Reference Citations Text Number Request

Key: Completed--Full--text retrieved and delivered below. Table Case--Multiple documents found for this citation; insufﬁcient information to choose one. Error --Full--text could not be retrieved and/or delivered.

LexisNexis is a trademark, and LEXSEE and LEXSTAT and Shepard's are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used under license. ALR is a registered trademark of West Licensing Corp. Copyright **** LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 2

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83, 51 U.S.L.W. 4945, 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1604 (1983)

SHEPARD'S Signal: Warning: Negative treatment is indicated Restrictions: Unrestricted FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS terms Print Format: FULL Citing Ref. Signal Legend: {Warning} ----negative treatment indicated {Questioned} ----validity questioned by citing refs. {Caution} ----possible negative treatment {Positive} ----positive treatment indicated {Analysis} ----cited and neutral analysis indicated {Cited} ----citation information available SHEPARD'S SUMMARY

Unrestricted Shepard's Summary No negative subsequent appellate history. Citing References: Warning Analyses: Superseded (2) Cautionary Analyses: Criticized (4), Distinguished (43), Limited (2) Positive Analyses: Followed (207), Concurring Opinion (14) Neutral Analyses: Dissenting Op. (41), Explained (46), Harmonized (2) Other Sources: Law Reviews (370), Statutes (9), Treatises (78), American Law Rpts/Lawyers' Edition Annos (8)

LexisNexis Headnotes: HN2 (17), HN3 (35), HN4 (255), HN5 (376), HN6 (30), HN7 (298), HN8 (3), HN9 (388), HN10 (1528), HN11 (494), HN12 (40), HN13 (2), HN14 (4), HN15 (25), HN16 (64), HN17 (1790), HN18 (468), HN19 (737), HN20 (50), HN22 (585), HN23 (16), HN24 (793), HN25 (1287), HN26 (2), HN27 (7), HN28 (361), HN29 (550)

PRIOR HISTORY ( 2 citing references )

1. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 679 F.2d 1307, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18112, 3 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1577 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982) {Warning}

Vacated by, Remanded by (CITATION YOU ENTERED): Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83, 51 U.S.L.W. 4945, 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1604 (1983){Warning}

2. Criticized by: Page 3 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Local Union 212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Vacation Trust Fund v. Local 212 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Credit Union, 735 F.2d 1010, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21663, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1655 (6th Cir. Ohio 1984){Caution}

SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE HISTORY ( 1 citing reference )

3. Later proceeding at: Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 204 Cal. App. 3d 955, 251 Cal. Rptr. 597, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 954, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1129 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1988){Caution}

CITING DECISIONS ( 3100 citing decisions ) U.S. SUPREME COURT

4. Cited by: Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 126 S. Ct. 2145, 165 L. Ed. 2d 92, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4676, 74 U.S.L.W. 4325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93880 (U.S. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

126 S. Ct. 2145 p.2156 165 L. Ed. 2d 92 p.105

5. Cited by: Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 126 S. Ct. 2121, 165 L. Ed. 2d 131, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4679, 74 U.S.L.W. 4338, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 265, 37 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2729 (U.S. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN25{Analysis}

126 S. Ct. 2121 p.2131 165 L. Ed. 2d 131 p.143

6. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 162 L. Ed. 2d 257, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4659, 73 U.S.L.W. 4501, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 365, 95 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2799, 2005--1U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50405 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 125 S. Ct. 2363 p.2372 162 L. Ed. 2d 257 p.269 Cited by: 125 S. Ct. 2363 p.2367 162 L. Ed. 2d 257 p.264

7. Cited by: Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 124 S. Ct. 2488, 159 L. Ed. 2d 312, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4571, 72 U.S.L.W. 4516, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 415, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2569 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution} Page 4 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

542 U.S. 200 p.207 124 S. Ct. 2488 p.2494 159 L. Ed. 2d 312 p.326

8. Cited by: Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 124 S. Ct. 1836, 158 L. Ed. 2d 645, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3236, 72 U.S.L.W. 4332, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 266, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41634, 93 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 993 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

541 U.S. 369 p.377 124 S. Ct. 1836 p.1842 158 L. Ed. 2d 645 p.653

9. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Ben. Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 156 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4277, 71 U.S.L.W. 4409, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 325, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4550, 2003 D.A.R. 5793 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN12, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 539 U.S. 1 p.9 123 S. Ct. 2058 p.2063 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.9 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 539 U.S. 1 p.12 123 S. Ct. 2058 p.2065 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.11 Cited by: 539 U.S. 1 p.6 123 S. Ct. 2058 p.2062 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.7

10. Cited by: Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 153 L. Ed. 2d 13, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4022, 70 U.S.L.W. 4489, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 325, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4781, 2002 D.A.R. 6073, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1801 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

535 U.S. 826 p.830 535 U.S. 826 p.831 122 S. Ct. 1889 p.1893 122 S. Ct. 1889 p.1894 153 L. Ed. 2d 13 p.19 153 L. Ed. 2d 13 p.20

11. Cited by: Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 118 S. Ct. 2047, 141 L. Ed. 2d 364, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4029, 66 U.S.L.W. 4531, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 658, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4764, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3216, 98 D.A.R. 6747, 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1838 (1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2{Questioned} Page 5 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

524 U.S. 381 p.387 118 S. Ct. 2047 p.2051 141 L. Ed. 2d 364 p.371

12. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div. v. United Auto., Aero. & Agric. Implement Workers, 523 U.S. 653, 118 S. Ct. 1626, 140 L. Ed. 2d 863, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 3103, 66 U.S.L.W. 4356, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 528, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3739, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2460, 98 D.A.R. 5159, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2193, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10159 (1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN13, HN16, HN17 , HN18, HN24{Caution}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 140 L. Ed. 2d 863 p.873 Cited by: 523 U.S. 653 p.659 118 S. Ct. 1626 p.1630 140 L. Ed. 2d 863 p.870

13. Cited by: Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 118 S. Ct. 921, 139 L. Ed. 2d 912, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 1434, 66 U.S.L.W. 4132, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 329, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1313, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 884, 98 D.A.R. 1793, 11 Fla. L. Weekly S 329, 32 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 187, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P77633 (1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Caution}

522 U.S. 470 p.475 118 S. Ct. 921 p.925 139 L. Ed. 2d 912 p.918 139 L. Ed. 2d 912 p.919

14. Cited by: City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 118 S. Ct. 523, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 7502, 66 U.S.L.W. 4041, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 271, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9348, 1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3342, 97 D.A.R. 15041, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20612 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

522 U.S. 156 p.163 522 U.S. 156 p.164 118 S. Ct. 523 p.529 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 p.534 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 p.535

15. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: De Buono v. NYSA--ILAMed. & Clinical Servs. Fund, 520 U.S. 806, 117 S. Ct. 1747, 138 L. Ed. 2d 21, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3397, 65 U.S.L.W. 4410, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 529, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4112, 97 D.A.R. 6877, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1041 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

520 U.S. 806 p.819 117 S. Ct. 1747 p.1754 Page 6 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

138 L. Ed. 2d 21 p.33

16. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 115 S. Ct. 1933, 132 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3640, 63 U.S.L.W. 4468, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 71, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3949, 95 D.A.R. 6797 (1995){Analysis}

515 U.S. 1 p.25 115 S. Ct. 1933 p.1946 132 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.24

17. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374, 112 S. Ct. 2031, 119 L. Ed. 2d 157, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3254, 60 U.S.L.W. 4444, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 306, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4585, 92 D.A.R. 7347, 1992--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P69828 (1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

504 U.S. 374 p.419 112 S. Ct. 2031 p.2054 119 L. Ed. 2d 157 p.190

18. Cited by: Barnes v. E--Systems, 501 U.S. 1301, 112 S. Ct. 1, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1087, 1991U.S. LEXIS 4096 (1991){Positive}

501 U.S. 1301 p.1303 112 S. Ct. 1 p.2 115 L. Ed. 2d 1087 p.1090

19. Cited by: Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 109 S. Ct. 1668, 104 L. Ed. 2d 98, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2027, 57 U.S.L.W. 4429, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2233, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11075, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 369 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

490 U.S. 107 p.114 109 S. Ct. 1668 p.1672 104 L. Ed. 2d 98 p.108

20. Cited by: Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 599, 57 U.S.L.W. 4194, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1873 (1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

489 U.S. 101 p.110 109 S. Ct. 948 p.954 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 p.92

21. Cited by: Page 7 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., 486 U.S. 825, 108 S. Ct. 2182, 100 L. Ed. 2d 836, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2735, 56 U.S.L.W. 4631, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2129, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55889, 28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1140 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Questioned}

486 U.S. 825 p.830 108 S. Ct. 2182 p.2185 100 L. Ed. 2d 836 p.844

22. Cited by: Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 108 S. Ct. 2166, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2733, 56 U.S.L.W. 4625, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 452, 1988--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P68081, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1109 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN24, HN25{Caution}

486 U.S. 800 p.808 108 S. Ct. 2166 p.2174 108 S. Ct. 2166 p.2175 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 p.825 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 p.826 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 p.827

23. Cited by: Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399, 108 S. Ct. 1877, 100 L. Ed. 2d 410, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2491, 56 U.S.L.W. 4512, 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1553, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 481, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2521 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

486 U.S. 399 p.406 108 S. Ct. 1877 p.1881 100 L. Ed. 2d 410 p.419

24. Cited by: Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2607, 55 U.S.L.W. 4804, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 193, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2521, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12342 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

482 U.S. 386 p.391 482 U.S. 386 p.393 107 S. Ct. 2425 p.2429 107 S. Ct. 2425 p.2430 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 p.326 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 p.327

25. Distinguished by, Cited by: Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S. Ct. 1542, 95 L. Ed. 2d 55, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1514, 55 U.S.L.W. 4468, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1417 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

Distinguished by: Page 8 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

481 U.S. 58 p.63 107 S. Ct. 1542 p.1546 95 L. Ed. 2d 55 p.63 Cited by: 95 L. Ed. 2d 55 p.62

26. Cited by: Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S. Ct. 1549, 95 L. Ed. 2d 39, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1512, 55 U.S.L.W. 4471, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1409 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

481 U.S. 41 p.56 107 S. Ct. 1549 p.1557 95 L. Ed. 2d 39 p.53

27. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 143, 54 U.S.L.W. 5088 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Caution}

Followed by: 478 U.S. 804 p.806 106 S. Ct. 3229 p.3233 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 p.657 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 478 U.S. 804 p.818 106 S. Ct. 3229 p.3237 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 p.665 Cited by: 106 S. Ct. 3229 p.3231 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 p.662

28. Cited by: Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 77 L. Ed. 2d 490, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 86, 51 U.S.L.W. 4968, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P33679, 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1593, 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 121 (1983){Questioned}

463 U.S. 85 p.96 103 S. Ct. 2890 p.2899 103 S. Ct. 2890 p.2900 77 L. Ed. 2d 490 p.500 1ST CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

29. Cited by: Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, 407 F.3d 450, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8323 (1st Cir. R.I. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8323 Page 9 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

30. Cited by: Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 404 F.3d 48, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6086, 86 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41918, 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 976 (1st Cir. Me. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Warning}

404 F.3d 48 p.59

31. Cited by: Rossello--Gonzalezv. Calderon--Serra, 398 F.3d 1, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26422 (1st Cir. P.R. 2004){Analysis}

398 F.3d 1 p.9 398 F.3d 1 p.11 398 F.3d 1 p.12

32. Cited by: Local Union No. 12004, USW v. Massachusetts, 377 F.3d 64, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15777, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10376 (1st Cir. Mass. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN10, HN12, HN16, HN17, HN19, HN23, HN25 {Positive}

377 F.3d 64 p.73 377 F.3d 64 p.74

33. Cited by: Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v. Cape Wind Assocs., 373 F.3d 183, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12914, 2004 A.M.C. 1728, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20037 (1st Cir. Mass. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

373 F.3d 183 p.191

34. Cited by: Ortega v. Star--KistFoods, Inc., 370 F.3d 124, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10714, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17013 (1st Cir. P.R. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Warning}

370 F.3d 124 p.138

35. Cited by: Metheny v. Becker, 352 F.3d 458, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25131 (1st Cir. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7{Positive}

352 F.3d 458 p.460

36. Followed by, Cited by: Templeton Bd. of Sewer Comm'rs v. Am. Tissue Mills of Mass., Inc., 352 F.3d 33, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24689 (1st Cir. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

Followed by: 352 F.3d 33 p.40 Page 10 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cited by: 352 F.3d 33 p.37

37. Cited by: Hotz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., 292 F.3d 57, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11153, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1001 (1st Cir. Mass. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

292 F.3d 57 p.59

38. Cited by: Barrs v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 287 F.3d 202, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7479, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2409 (1st Cir. Mass. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN29 {Positive}

287 F.3d 202 p.207

39. Cited by: Vargas v. Geologistics Ams., 284 F.3d 232, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5365, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2859, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10019 (1st Cir. P.R. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

284 F.3d 232 p.234

40. Cited by: Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25965, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1941 (1st Cir. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN25{Positive}

273 F.3d 14 p.23

41. Cited by: Penobscot Nation v. Georgia--Paciﬁc Corp., 254 F.3d 317, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13732, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20741 (1st Cir. Me. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Caution}

254 F.3d 317 p.321

42. Cited by: State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Denman Tire Corp., 240 F.3d 83, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2398, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1897 (1st Cir. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Analysis}

240 F.3d 83 p.89

43. Cited by: Almond v. Capital Props., 212 F.3d 20, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 9139 (1st Cir. R.I. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

212 F.3d 20 p.23 212 F.3d 20 p.24 Page 11 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

44. Cited by: Danca v. Private Health Care Sys., 185 F.3d 1, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18043, 23 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1505 (1st Cir. Mass. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

185 F.3d 1 p.4

45. Cited by: American Airlines v. Cardoza--Rodriguez, 133 F.3d 111, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 219, 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45332, 75 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1217 (1st Cir. P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN28{Questioned}

133 F.3d 111 p.115

46. Cited by: BIW Deceived v. Local S6, Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 132 F.3d 824, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36795, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2148, 134 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10099 (1st Cir. Me. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Caution}

132 F.3d 824 p.831

47. Cited by: Golas v. Homeview Inc., 106 F.3d 1, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175 (1st Cir. Mass. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Analysis}

106 F.3d 1 p.3

48. Cited by: Ernst & Young v. Depositors Economic Protection Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1387 (1st Cir. R.I. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14, HN15 , HN17, HN18{Caution}

45 F.3d 530 p.534

49. Cited by: In re Edwards, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40475 (1st Cir. Dec. 9, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 {Analysis}

50. Cited by: Albright v. FDIC, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6206 (1st Cir. Apr. 1, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

51. Followed by: Bank of New England Old Colony, N.A. v. Clark, 986 F.2d 600, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 3412 (1st Cir. R.I. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

986 F.2d 600 p.603

52. Cited by: Page 12 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

American Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., 989 F.2d 1256, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 3000 (1st Cir. Mass. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN25 {Positive}

989 F.2d 1256 p.1262 989 F.2d 1256 p.1263

53. Cited by: McCoy v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 950 F.2d 13, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27391, 60 U.S.L.W. 2366, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1874 (1st Cir. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19{Positive}

950 F.2d 13 p.17

54. Cited by: Capizzi v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 937 F.2d 8, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12768, 115 A.L.R. Fed. 809 (1st Cir. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11 , HN17{Caution}

937 F.2d 8 p.10

55. 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 HN11, HN17{Caution}

906 F.2d 25 p.29

56. Explained by: Nashoba Communications Ltd. Partnership No. 7 v. Danvers, 893 F.2d 435, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 231, 67 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 390, Util. L. Rep. (CCH) P13597 (1st Cir. Mass. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18 , HN25{Caution}

893 F.2d 435 p.437 893 F.2d 435 p.438

57. Cited by: Fitzgerald v. Codex Corp., 882 F.2d 586, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12225, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1441 (1st Cir. Mass. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

882 F.2d 586 p.587

58. Cited by: Maine Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Commissioner, Maine Dep't of Human Services, 876 F.2d 1051, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7867 (1st Cir. Me. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

876 F.2d 1051 p.1053 Page 13 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

59. Cited by: Northeast Federal Credit Union v. Neves, 837 F.2d 531, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 597 (1st Cir. N.H. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

837 F.2d 531 p.535

60. Cited by: Colonial Penn Group, Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co., 834 F.2d 229, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15730, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1096 (1st Cir. R.I. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN16, HN17, HN18, HN22, HN23, HN24, HN25{Caution}

834 F.2d 229 p.232 834 F.2d 229 p.233 834 F.2d 229 p.234 834 F.2d 229 p.235 834 F.2d 229 p.237

61. Cited by: Patriot Cinemas v. General Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15434, 1987--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P67769 (1st Cir. Mass. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN20, HN25{Caution}

834 F.2d 208 p.216

62. Cited by: Greenﬁeld & Montague Transp. Area v. Donovan, 758 F.2d 22, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31407, 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3253 (1st Cir. Mass. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17 {Caution}

758 F.2d 22 p.26 758 F.2d 22 p.27

63. Distinguished by, Followed by: Hernandez--Agostov. Romero--Barcelo, 748 F.2d 1, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17423 (1st Cir. P.R. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Positive}

Distinguished by: 748 F.2d 1 p.3 748 F.2d 1 p.4 Followed by: 748 F.2d 1 p.2

64. Cited by: United States v. Puerto Rico, 721 F.2d 832, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16139, 20 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1189, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20003 (1st Cir. P.R. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

721 F.2d 832 p.838 1ST CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS Page 14 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

65. Cited by: N.H. HHS v. Katz, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28161 (D.N.H. Apr. 28, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28161

66. Cited by: Beniquez v. Pﬁzer Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23604 (D.P.R. Mar. 21, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23604

67. Cited by: Lopez v. Astrazeneca Pharms. LP, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11242 (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11242

68. Cited by: Able Sales Co. v. Mead Johnson P.R., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12216 (D.P.R. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

420 F. Supp. 2d 1 p.8

69. Followed by: Southwest Boston Senior Services, Inc. v. Whatley (In re Whatley), 396 F. Supp. 2d 50, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24848 (D. Mass. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited}

396 F. Supp. 2d 50 p.54

70. Cited by: Ortiz--Enriquezv. Nat'l Healthcare Afﬁliates, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35362 (D.P.R. Oct. 18, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35362

71. Cited by: Borgese v. Am. Lung Ass'n, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24169, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1485, 96 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1181 (D. Me. Oct. 17, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9{Positive}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24169

72. Cited by: Betancourt v. Bear Stearns & Co., 392 F. Supp. 2d 187, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22599 (D.P.R. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

392 F. Supp. 2d 187 p.189

73. Cited by: Page 15 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Broad. Networks of P.R., Inc. v. Communs. Counsel Group, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39170 (D.P.R. Aug. 17, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39170

74. Cited by: Warner v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16911, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1838, 178 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2083, 11 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 95 (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16911

75. Cited by: Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de P.R., Inc. v. Shell Chem. Yabucoa Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 40, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15930, 2005--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74917 (D.P.R. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

380 F. Supp. 2d 40 p.42

76. Cited by: Miara v. First Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. Co., 379 F. Supp. 2d 20, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12163, 35 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1337 (D. Mass. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Positive}

379 F. Supp. 2d 20 p.25

77. Cited by: Muﬁoz v. Island Fin. Corp., 364 F. Supp. 2d 131, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5151, 35 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1554 (D.P.R. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN4, HN6, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

364 F. Supp. 2d 131 p.134

78. Cited by: Cardillo v. Cardillo, 360 F. Supp. 2d 402, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4667 (D.R.I. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Caution}

360 F. Supp. 2d 402 p.414

79. Followed by, Cited by: Esso Std. Oil Co.(P.R.) v. Monroig Zayas, 352 F. Supp. 2d 165, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 906 (D.P.R. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 352 F. Supp. 2d 165 p.168 Cited by: 352 F. Supp. 2d 165 p.167

80. Cited by: Page 16 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Rivera v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 349 F. Supp. 2d 240, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25230, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2589 (D.P.R. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN27, HN28, HN29{Caution}

349 F. Supp. 2d 240 p.245

81. Cited by: Rosello v. Calderon, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27216 (D.P.R. Nov. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27216

82. Cited by: Warner v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp., 350 F. Supp. 2d 108, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25220, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2598, 176 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2363, 10 Wage &Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 355 (D. Me. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN25 {Caution}

350 F. Supp. 2d 108 p.114

83. Cited by: Scott v. Murray, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26757 (D.R.I. Oct. 28, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26757

84. Cited by: Corliss v. Levesque Auto Servs., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20681 (D. Mass. Oct. 13, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20681

85. Cited by: Hernandez--Nieves v. Scotiabank of P.R., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23146 (D.P.R. Oct. 1, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23146

86. Cited by: Tobin v. Nadeau, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17187, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2786 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17187

87. Cited by: Univ. of Mass. v. Robl, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14697, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1636 (D. Mass. Aug. 2, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14697

88. Cited by: Page 17 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Alshraﬁ v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 150, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10331 (D. Mass. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

321 F. Supp. 2d 150 p.154

89. Cited by: Matosantos Commer. Corp. v. SCA Tissue of N. Am., L.L.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.P.R. May 6, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14, HN17, HN18{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586

90. Cited by: Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Exec. Dir. Me. Human Rights Comm'n, 307 F. Supp. 2d 95, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2814 (D. Me. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11 , HN16, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24{Warning}

307 F. Supp. 2d 95 p.99

91. Cited by: Mangual--Saezv. Brilliant Globe Logistics, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27003 (D.P.R. Jan. 27, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN24{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27003

92. Cited by: Russell's Garden Ctr., Inc. v. Nextel Communs. of the Mid--Atlantic,Inc., 296 F. Supp. 2d 13, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22552 (D. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Positive}

296 F. Supp. 2d 13 p.17

93. Cited by: Gattegno v. Sprint Corp., 297 F. Supp. 2d 372, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22537 (D. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

297 F. Supp. 2d 372 p.375

94. Cited by: Alfaro v. Crowley Liner Servs., 294 F. Supp. 2d 143, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21678, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2158 (D.P.R. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17 {Cited}

294 F. Supp. 2d 143 p.145

95. Cited by: Minnesota v. Pharmacia Corp., 278 F. Supp. 2d 101, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14283 (D. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

278 F. Supp. 2d 101 p.102 Page 18 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

96. Cited by: Robles v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 275 F. Supp. 2d 168, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13681, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1809 (D.P.R. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

275 F. Supp. 2d 168 p.171

97. Cited by: Casey v. Goulian, 273 F. Supp. 2d 136, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12937 (D. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

273 F. Supp. 2d 136 p.138

98. Cited by: Rodriguez v. MCS Life Ins. Co., 283 F. Supp. 2d 459, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24444 (D.P.R. 2003){Analysis}

283 F. Supp. 2d 459 p.467

99. Cited by: Montana v. Abbot Labs., 266 F. Supp. 2d 250, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9890 (D. Mass. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Caution}

266 F. Supp. 2d 250 p.255

100. Cited by: E. Boston Sav. Bank v. Bruno, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24444, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2111 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24444

101. Followed by, Cited by: Wiener v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellﬁsh Hatchery Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 346, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18900 (D. Mass. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11 , HN16, HN17, HN24{Caution}

Followed by: 223 F. Supp. 2d 346 p.352 Cited by: 223 F. Supp. 2d 346 p.350

102. Cited by: Tempelman v. Colsia, 2002 DNH 172, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19037 (D.N.H. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19037

103. Cited by: Giannetti v. Mahoney, 218 F. Supp. 2d 8, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15852, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1462 (D. Mass. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Positive} Page 19 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

218 F. Supp. 2d 8 p.10

104. Cited by: Russell v. Allied Textile Cos., PLC (In re Carleton Woolen Mills, Inc.), 281 B.R. 409, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13090, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1183 (D. Me. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

281 B.R. 409 p.418

105. Cited by: Below v. Gardner, 2002 DNH 106, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9935 (D.N.H. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9935

106. Cited by: Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Rivera, 204 F. Supp. 2d 273, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20239 (D.P.R. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

204 F. Supp. 2d 273 p.277

107. Cited by: Barbara Brawn & Ameriklean, Inc. v. Donald Coleman & Seiu, 167 F. Supp. 2d 145, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13515, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2166 (D. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

167 F. Supp. 2d 145 p.149

108. Cited by: Dean v. Compass Receivables Mgmt. Corp., 148 F. Supp. 2d 116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13472 (D. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

148 F. Supp. 2d 116 p.118

109. Cited by: Cabana v. Forcier, 148 F. Supp. 2d 110, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13473, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20765 (D. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

148 F. Supp. 2d 110 p.113

110. Cited by: Ferrer v. Banco Cent. Hispano--PuertoRico, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 190, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5979 (D.P.R. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

142 F. Supp. 2d 190 p.195

111. Cited by: Page 20 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

FERRER v. BANCO CENT. HISPANO--PUERTO RICO, INC., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8060 (D.P.R. Apr. 27, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25

112. Cited by: Harvey v. Machigonne Beneﬁts Adm'rs, 128 F. Supp. 2d 51, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4055, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1058 (D. Me. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

128 F. Supp. 2d 51 p.54

113. Cited by: Kleinerman v. Luxtron Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 122, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14023 (D. Mass. 2000){Caution}

107 F. Supp. 2d 122 p.123

114. Explained by: Guglielmo v. WorldCom, Inc., 2000 DNH 169, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10923 (D.N.H. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10923

115. Followed by, Cited by: Penobscot Nation v. Georgia--Paciﬁc Corp., 106 F. Supp. 2d 81, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10653 (D. Me. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN16, HN17 , HN18{Caution}

Followed by: 106 F. Supp. 2d 81 p.83 Cited by: 106 F. Supp. 2d 81 p.82

116. Cited by: Heineken Tech. Servs. v. Darby, 103 F. Supp. 2d 476, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9336 (D. Mass. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

103 F. Supp. 2d 476 p.479

117. Cited by: City of Boston v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 66 F. Supp. 2d 246, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15779 (D. Mass. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN25{Positive}

66 F. Supp. 2d 246 p.249

118. Cited by: Pejepscot Indus. Park v. Me. Cent. R.R., 59 F. Supp. 2d 109, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11745 (D. Me. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Warning}

59 F. Supp. 2d 109 p.114

119. Cited by: Page 21 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Inverness Corp. v. McCullough, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19557 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11{Positive}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19557

120. Cited by: Servia--Mendozav. Burgos, 31 F. Supp. 2d 35, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20203 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

31 F. Supp. 2d 35 p.38

121. Cited by: Hernandez--Lopezv. Puerto Rico, 30 F. Supp. 2d 205, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19522 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12{Analysis}

30 F. Supp. 2d 205 p.211

122. Cited by: Williams v. Local Union 911, USW, 31 F. Supp. 2d 40, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19441, 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2034 (D.R.I. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Caution}

31 F. Supp. 2d 40 p.43

123. Cited by: Cintron Parrilla v. Lilly Del Caribe, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 2d 35, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19815 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

32 F. Supp. 2d 35 p.37

124. Cited by: Arroyo v. State Election Bd., 30 F. Supp. 2d 183, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

30 F. Supp. 2d 183 p.186

125. Cited by: Hernandez v. State Elections Comm'n, 30 F. Supp. 2d 178, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19444 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

30 F. Supp. 2d 178 p.180

126. Cited by: Hernandez--Lopezv. Puerto Rico State Elections Comm'n, 27 F. Supp. 2d 302, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18746 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN24, HN25{Analysis}

27 F. Supp. 2d 302 p.307

127. Cited by: Page 22 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Popular Democratic Party v. Puerto Rico, 24 F. Supp. 2d 184, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16638 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Caution}

24 F. Supp. 2d 184 p.188

128. Cited by: Nogueras--Cartagena v. Rossello--Gonzalez, 182 F.R.D. 380, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16237 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

182 F.R.D. 380 p.386

129. Cited by: Varela--Fernandez v. Burgos, 15 F. Supp. 2d 183, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12344 (D.P.R. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

15 F. Supp. 2d 183 p.185

130. Cited by: Lydon v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., 15 F. Supp. 2d 150, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10617 (D. Mass. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20{Caution}

15 F. Supp. 2d 150 p.153

131. Cited by: Massachusetts Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund, by and Through its Trustees v. Philip Morris, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22501 (D. Mass. June 19, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22501

132. Cited by: I.V. Servs. of Am. v. Inn Dev. & Mgmt., 7 F. Supp. 2d 79, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7776 (D. Mass. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

7 F. Supp. 2d 79 p.83

133. Cited by: McArdle v. Bornhofft, 980 F. Supp. 68, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14796, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1470 (D. Me. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Cited}

980 F. Supp. 68 p.70

134. Cited by: Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 946 F. Supp. 1067, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18438 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

946 F. Supp. 1067 p.1072

135. Cited by: Comeau v. Heller, 945 F. Supp. 7, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19817, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14827 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution} Page 23 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

945 F. Supp. 7 p.9

136. Cited by: Delta Dental v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 942 F. Supp. 740, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14413 (D.R.I. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24{Caution}

942 F. Supp. 740 p.747

137. Cited by: Massachusetts v. Philip Morris Inc., 942 F. Supp. 690, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6859 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10{Positive}

942 F. Supp. 690 p.693

138. Cited by: Garcia v. Williamson Dickie Mfg. Co., 924 F. Supp. 1, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5999 (D.P.R. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

924 F. Supp. 1 p.2

139. Cited by: Arroyo v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 919 F. Supp. 62, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3311, 132 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11698 (D.P.R. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

919 F. Supp. 62 p.63

140. Cited by: EMC Corp. v. Roland, 916 F. Supp. 51, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5275, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44096, 69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1244, 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33392, 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33932 (D. Mass. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Cited}

916 F. Supp. 51 p.53

141. Cited by: Turpin v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 824, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14619 (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

142. Cited by: Fisher v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 823, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14618 (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

143. Cited by: Shumaker v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 822, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14617 (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

144. Cited by: Cullen v. E.H. Friedrich Co., 910 F. Supp. 815, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20498 (D. Mass. 1995){Caution} Page 24 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

910 F. Supp. 815 p.822

145. Cited by: Cullen v. E.H. Friedrich Co., 910 F. Supp. 815, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20499 (D. Mass. 1995){Caution}

146. Cited by: Williams--Ward v. Lorenzo Pitts, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 48, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17779 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

908 F. Supp. 48 p.52

147. Cited by: Transport Auditing v. Sea--LandServ., 897 F. Supp. 34, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13982 (D.P.R. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN20, HN24 , HN25{Positive}

897 F. Supp. 34 p.36

148. Cited by: Sirois v. Business Express, 906 F. Supp. 722, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11159, 130 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57977, 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11592 (D.N.H. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Analysis}

906 F. Supp. 722 p.726

149. Cited by: Sirois v. Business Express, 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11592 (D.N.H. July 26, 1995){Analysis}

131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11592

150. Cited by: Hood v. City of Boston, 891 F. Supp. 51, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9438 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

891 F. Supp. 51 p.56

151. Cited by: Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5307 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

886 F. Supp. 162 p.178

152. Cited by: Therrien v. Hamilton, 881 F. Supp. 76, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4719 (D. Mass. 1995) {Caution}

881 F. Supp. 76 p.78 881 F. Supp. 76 p.82

153. Cited by: Page 25 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Therrien v. Hamilton, 881 F. Supp. 76, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4697 (D. Mass. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

154. Cited by: Cok v. Forte, 877 F. Supp. 797, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2653 (D.R.I. 1995) {Analysis}

877 F. Supp. 797 p.802

155. Cited by: Cok v. Forte, 877 F. Supp. 797, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19855 (D.R.I. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15{Positive}

156. Cited by: Berlin City Ford v. Roberts Planning Group, 864 F. Supp. 292, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12907 (D.N.H. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN18{Caution}

864 F. Supp. 292 p.293 864 F. Supp. 292 p.294

157. Cited by: Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Eastern Middlesex Ass'n of Realtors, 860 F. Supp. 906, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10942, 1994--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P70769 (D. Mass. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

860 F. Supp. 906 p.909 860 F. Supp. 906 p.910

158. Cited by: Ernst & Young v. Depositors Economic Protection Corp., 862 F. Supp. 709, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D.R.I. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15 {Positive}

862 F. Supp. 709 p.713

159. Cited by: Lloyd v. FDIC, 812 F. Supp. 293, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2021 (D.R.I. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Warning}

812 F. Supp. 293 p.301

160. Followed by: Pike v. Edgar, 801 F. Supp. 907, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14987, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97303, 96--1U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50051 (D.N.H. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17{Analysis}

801 F. Supp. 907 p.910

161. Cited by: Page 26 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/E.F. Hutton, 803 F. Supp. 464, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15479 (D. Mass. 1992){Caution}

803 F. Supp. 464 p.472

162. Cited by: Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/E.F. Hutton, 803 F. Supp. 464, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15487, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P97246 (D. Mass. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Positive}

163. Cited by: Barzelay v. Ares--Serono, S.A., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12035 (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

164. Cited by: Faloon v. W.S. Libby Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9337, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 794, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2345 (D. Me. Apr. 27, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Cited}

7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 794 p.795 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2345 p.2347

165. Cited by: Hudson County News Co. v. Metro Assoc., Inc., 141 F.R.D. 386, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17733 (D. Mass. 1992){Analysis}

141 F.R.D. 386 p.389

166. Cited by: Financial Planning Inst., Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 788 F. Supp. 75, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4082, 70 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1421 (D. Mass. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Caution}

788 F. Supp. 75 p.76

167. Cited by: Crespo v. Candela Laser Corp., 780 F. Supp. 866, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 481 (D. Mass. 1992){Caution}

780 F. Supp. 866 p.869

168. Cited by: Hudson County News Co. v. Metro Assocs., Inc., 141 F.R.D. 386, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20792 (D. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

169. Cited by: Brock v. Lorenzo Pitts, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21189 (D. Mass. June 7, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis} Page 27 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

170. Cited by: Papadopoulos v. UNC Assoc., Inc., 760 F. Supp. 243, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4790, 55 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1234 (D. Mass. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

760 F. Supp. 243 p.244

171. Cited by: Massachusetts v. V & M Management, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 519, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18167 (D. Mass. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

752 F. Supp. 519 p.521

172. Cited by: Bellino v. Schlumberger Technologies, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 394, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16903, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1458 (D. Me. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Positive}

753 F. Supp. 394 p.399

173. Cited by: East Coast Steel Erectors, Inc. v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 7, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7452, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10384 (D. Mass. June 15, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

174. Cited by: Lifetime Medical Nursing Services, Inc. v. New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund, 730 F. Supp. 1192, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1769, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1025 (D.R.I. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

730 F. Supp. 1192 p.1194

175. Cited by: Magerer v. John Sexton & Co., 727 F. Supp. 744, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 850, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2305, 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10033 (D. Mass. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

727 F. Supp. 744 p.747

176. Cited by: Magerer v. John Sexton & Co., 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56625 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 1990){Caution}

118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56625

177. Followed by: Cablevision of Boston Ltd. Partnership v. Flynn, 710 F. Supp. 23, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3350, 66 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1458 (D. Mass. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

710 F. Supp. 23 p.25 Page 28 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

710 F. Supp. 23 p.27

178. Explained by: Korb v. Raytheon Co., 707 F. Supp. 63, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1647 (D. Mass. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

707 F. Supp. 63 p.66

179. Cited by: Maine Asso. of Independent Neighborhoods (M.A.I.N.) v. Commissioner, Maine Dep't of Human Services, 697 F. Supp. 557, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11449 (D. Me. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

697 F. Supp. 557 p.559

180. Cited by: Paulo v. Cooley, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 377, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4562, 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1571 (D.R.I. 1988){Cited}

686 F. Supp. 377 p.380

181. Cited by: Rotolo v. Rotolo, 682 F. Supp. 8, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2431 (D.P.R. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17{Positive}

682 F. Supp. 8 p.10

182. Cited by: Maine Cent. R.R. Co. v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 835 F. Supp. 16, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18644 (D. Me. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN23, HN24, HN28, HN29{Cited}

835 F. Supp. 16 p.17

183. Cited by: Bally v. National Collegiate Athletic Asso., 707 F. Supp. 57, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (D. Mass. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

707 F. Supp. 57 p.58

184. Cited by: Colonial Penn Group, Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co., 654 F. Supp. 1247, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1587, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1429 (D.R.I. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18{Positive}

654 F. Supp. 1247 p.1250 654 F. Supp. 1247 p.1251

185. Cited by: Page 29 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17085, 1987--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P67453 (D. Mass. Dec. 1, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

186. Cited by: Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor (DACO) v. Oriental Federal Sav., 648 F. Supp. 1194, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18096 (D.P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11{Cited}

648 F. Supp. 1194 p.1196

187. Explained by, Cited by: Ferris v. General Dynamics Corp., 645 F. Supp. 1354, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19338 (D.R.I. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Questioned}

Explained by: 645 F. Supp. 1354 p.1358 Cited by: 645 F. Supp. 1354 p.1359

188. Followed by: Simplex Wire & Cable Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 2208 , 648 F. Supp. 163, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19606 (D.N.H. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

648 F. Supp. 163 p.166

189. Followed by, Cited by: Austin v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 644 F. Supp. 763, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20133, 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3158 (D. Mass. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

Followed by: 644 F. Supp. 763 p.765 644 F. Supp. 763 p.766 Cited by: 644 F. Supp. 763 p.768

190. Cited by: Dennis v. Figueroa, 642 F. Supp. 959, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21137 (D.P.R. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

642 F. Supp. 959 p.961

191. Cited by: COMPUTER SYS. OF AMERICA v. DATA GEN. CORP., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23619 (D. Mass. June 26, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17

192. Cited by: Page 30 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

COMPUTER SYS. OF AMERICA v. DATA GEN. CORP., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25117 (D. Mass. May 23, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN29

193. Cited by: Norwood v. Adams--RussellCo., 627 F. Supp. 742 (D. Mass. 1986){Cited}

627 F. Supp. 742 p.743 627 F. Supp. 742 p.744

194. Cited by: Denton v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Boilermakers Local 29 , 653 F. Supp. 55, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29969, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 478 (D. Mass. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

653 F. Supp. 55 p.62

195. Cited by: Hernandez v. Sea--LandService, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 675, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19543, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 484 (D.P.R. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 {Cited}

614 F. Supp. 675 p.678

196. Cited by: McCarthy v. Medway Teachers Asso., Local 3645, etc., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22880, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10035 (D. Mass. Feb. 4, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN16, HN17, HN18

197. Cited by: ANDERSON v. MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL SEAFOODS, INC., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23306 (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 1985)

198. Followed by: Padro v. International Institute of Americas, 597 F. Supp. 241, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22224 (D.P.R. 1984){Cited}

597 F. Supp. 241 p.243

199. Followed by, Cited by: Agosto v. Barcelo, 594 F. Supp. 1390, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23261 (D.P.R. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 594 F. Supp. 1390 p.1394 Cited by: 594 F. Supp. 1390 p.1393 594 F. Supp. 1390 p.1398 Page 31 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

200. Cited by: NOBLE v. ARABIAN AMOCO, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10385 (D. Mass. Dec. 28, 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN29

1ST CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

201. Cited by: Reyes v. FCC Nat'l Bank (In re Reyes), 238 B.R. 507, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1080 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Positive}

238 B.R. 507 p.519 2ND CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

202. Cited by: Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. E. Haddam Land Trust, Inc., 166 Fed. Appx. 506, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2180 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN17 {Analysis}

166 Fed. Appx. 506 p.508

203. Cited by: Morris v. Local 804, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 167 Fed. Appx. 230, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1500 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

167 Fed. Appx. 230 p.231

204. Cited by: Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 581 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

435 F.3d 127 p.135

205. Cited by: Joblove v. Barr Labs., Inc. (In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig.), 429 F.3d 370, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23653, 2005--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74993, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1705 (2d Cir. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN18, HN20 , HN24{Positive}

429 F.3d 370 p.383

206. Cited by: Sullivan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 424 F.3d 267, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19714, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3349, 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10539 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

424 F.3d 267 p.271

207. Cited by: Page 32 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18151, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2071 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

421 F.3d 96 p.101

208. Cited by: Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16811 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

418 F.3d 187 p.195

209. Cited by: Campbell v. Kane, Kessler, P.C., 144 Fed. Appx. 127, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13279, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3216 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

144 Fed. Appx. 127 p.130

210. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 751, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1490 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 396 F.3d 136 p.152 Cited by: 396 F.3d 136 p.140

211. Cited by: D'Alessio v. SEC, 380 F.3d 112, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16743, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92884 (2d Cir. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN17{Caution}

380 F.3d 112 p.117

212. Cited by: Bracey v. Bd. of Educ., 368 F.3d 108, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 761 (2d Cir. Conn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Caution}

368 F.3d 108 p.113

213. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: City of Rome v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 362 F.3d 168, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5582 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Positive}

Followed by: 362 F.3d 168 p.182 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 362 F.3d 168 p.184 Cited by: Page 33 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

362 F.3d 168 p.175

214. Followed by: Cicio v. Does, 321 F.3d 83, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2569 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

321 F.3d 83 p.92

215. Cited by: Perpetual Secs., Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9426 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

290 F.3d 132 p.137

216. Cited by: Connecticut v. Physicians Health Servs. of Conn., Inc., 287 F.3d 110, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5357, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2496 (2d Cir. Conn. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

287 F.3d 110 p.121

217. Cited by: Simon v. GE, 263 F.3d 176, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19512, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2173 (2d Cir. Conn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

263 F.3d 176 p.177

218. Cited by: D'Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 16012, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91523 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Caution}

258 F.3d 93 p.99 258 F.3d 93 p.100

219. Cited by: Greenberg v. Bear, 220 F.3d 22, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19007 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

220 F.3d 22 p.25

220. Cited by: Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., 204 F.3d 311, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672, 19 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 587 (2d Cir. Vt. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12 , HN16, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

204 F.3d 311 p.317

221. Explained by, Cited by: Page 34 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 28218 (2d Cir. Conn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN18, HN23, HN24 {Caution}

Explained by: 160 F.3d 883 p.888 Cited by: 160 F.3d 883 p.886 160 F.3d 883 p.892

222. Cited by: Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3648, 11 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 921 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

138 F.3d 46 p.54

223. Cited by: Foy v. Pratt & Whitney Group, 127 F.3d 229, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617, 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2418 (2d Cir. Conn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 , HN24, HN25{Caution}

127 F.3d 229 p.232

224. Cited by: Concerned Citizens v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 127 F.3d 201, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25766, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20039 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1997) {Caution}

127 F.3d 201 p.205

225. Cited by: Concerned Citizens v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36155 (2d Cir. N.Y. Sept. 2, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

226. Distinguished by: Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State DOL, 107 F.3d 1000, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4656, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2593, 134 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58305, 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1405 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN25{Caution}

107 F.3d 1000 p.1006

227. Distinguished by, Cited by: Romney v. Lin, 105 F.3d 806, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1044, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2446 (2d Cir. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Distinguished by: 105 F.3d 806 p.813 Cited by: Page 35 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

105 F.3d 806 p.812

228. Cited by: Barbara v. New York Stock Exch., 99 F.3d 49, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27114 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN17, HN25{Caution}

99 F.3d 49 p.53

229. Cited by: Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28825, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2245, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2518 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

68 F.3d 561 p.567 68 F.3d 561 p.570 68 F.3d 561 p.572

230. Distinguished by: Franklin H. Williams Ins. Trust v. Travelers Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 144, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5694, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1320 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

50 F.3d 144 p.148

231. Cited by: Lupo v. Human Affairs Int'l, 28 F.3d 269, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16433, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1758 (2d Cir. Conn. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

28 F.3d 269 p.272

232. Explained by, Cited by: Albradco, Inc. v. Bevona, 982 F.2d 82, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 33436, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1279, 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2282, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10498 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

Explained by: 982 F.2d 82 p.85 982 F.2d 82 p.86 Cited by: 982 F.2d 82 p.87

233. Cited by: Calero v. INS, 957 F.2d 50, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2804, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1281 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

957 F.2d 50 p.52 Page 36 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

234. Cited by: Smith v. Dunham--Bush,Inc., 959 F.2d 6, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1085 (2d Cir. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Caution}

959 F.2d 6 p.8

235. Cited by: Cable Television Ass'n v. Finneran, 954 F.2d 91, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 713, 19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2043, 70 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 383, Util. L. Rep. (CCH) P13826 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

954 F.2d 91 p.94

236. Cited by: Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. New York, 855 F.2d 48, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11488, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 21317, 13 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1849, O.S.H. Dec. (CCH) P28291, 1988 O.S.H. Dec. (CCH) P28291 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

855 F.2d 48 p.56

237. Cited by: Four Keys Leasing & Maintenance Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8402 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

849 F.2d 770 p.773

238. Cited by: Derrico v. Sheehan Emergency Hospital, 844 F.2d 22, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4385, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 161, 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3201, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10438 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

844 F.2d 22 p.27 844 F.2d 22 p.28

239. Explained by: West 14th Street Commercial Corp. v. 5 West 14th Owners Corp., 815 F.2d 188, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3585 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN17, HN18{Caution}

815 F.2d 188 p.192 815 F.2d 188 p.194

240. Cited by: Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34155 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

806 F.2d 344 p.352

241. Cited by: Page 37 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Ostano Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Systems, Inc., 794 F.2d 763, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26494 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986){Caution}

794 F.2d 763 p.763

242. Cited by: Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26353 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24 {Questioned}

794 F.2d 754 p.758

243. Cited by: Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25936, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1817, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 159 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

793 F.2d 58 p.64 793 F.2d 58 p.65

244. Distinguished by: Board of Electric Light Comm'rs v. McCarren, 725 F.2d 176, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14026 (2d Cir. Vt. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Analysis}

725 F.2d 176 p.178 2ND CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

245. Cited by: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20575 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20575

246. Cited by: Richards v. FleetBoston Fin. Corp., 235 F.R.D. 165, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15602, 37 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1472 (D. Conn. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

235 F.R.D. 165 p.175

247. Cited by: Banco de Santander Cent. Hispano, S.A. v. Consalvi Int'l, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 421, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14961 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN4

425 F. Supp. 2d 421 p.424

248. Cited by: Pocketmedicine.com, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13617 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN18 Page 38 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13617

249. Cited by: Korthas v. Northeast Foods, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18846 (N.D.N.Y Feb. 27, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18846

250. Followed by, Cited by: Jing Sung v. Wasserstein, 415 F. Supp. 2d 393, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6393, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93713 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24, HN25{Cited}

Followed by: 415 F. Supp. 2d 393 p.397 Cited by: 415 F. Supp. 2d 393 p.396

251. Cited by: Caltagirone v. New York Cmty. Bancorp, 414 F. Supp. 2d 188, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4929 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

414 F. Supp. 2d 188 p.191

252. Followed by: Bialy v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4681 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4681

253. Cited by: Casale v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34637 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34637

254. Cited by: Casale v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31559 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31559

255. Followed by: Wilson v. Lowe's Home Ctr., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 186, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29130 (D. Conn. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25{Cited}

401 F. Supp. 2d 186 p.190

256. Cited by: Page 39 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Quick v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig.) , 399 F. Supp. 2d 356, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22994 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution}

399 F. Supp. 2d 356 p.362

257. Cited by: Hayes v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41992 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41992

258. Cited by: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 340, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20296 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Caution}

399 F. Supp. 2d 340 p.345

259. Cited by: Uon Suk Park v. Trs. of the 1199 SEIU Health Care Emples. Pension Fund, 418 F. Supp. 2d 343, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20297, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1940 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

418 F. Supp. 2d 343 p.351

260. Cited by: Owen v. Georgia--Paciﬁc Corp., 389 F. Supp. 2d 382, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19391, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1424 (D. Conn. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

389 F. Supp. 2d 382 p.390

261. Cited by: Caggiano v. Pﬁzer Inc., 384 F. Supp. 2d 689, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18232 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

384 F. Supp. 2d 689 p.690

262. Cited by: Aekyung Co. v. Intra & Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15998 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15998

263. Cited by: Q Mktg. Group, Ltd. v. P3 Int'l Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15968, 2005--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74696 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN17 Page 40 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15968

264. Cited by: Tabachnik v. Dorsey, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14267 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14267

265. Cited by: Glatzer v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13340 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13340

266. Cited by: Nazzaro v. Balber, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10131 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN11, HN24{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10131

267. Cited by: Don King Prods. v. Hopkins, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8132 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8132

268. Cited by: Barnhart v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3631, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1184 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24 {Positive}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3631

269. Cited by: Studebaker--Worthington Leasing Corp. v. Michael Rachlin & Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 529, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2521 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Positive}

357 F. Supp. 2d 529 p.534

270. Cited by: Toussaint v. JJ Weiser & Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2133, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1883 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2133

271. Cited by: H--Quotient,Inc. v. Knight Trading Group, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924, 2005--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74722 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17 Page 41 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924

272. Cited by: NYU Hosps. Center--Tisch v. Local 348 Health & Welfare Fund, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2339 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN17, HN18{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256

273. Distinguished by: Young v. Pﬁzer Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25964 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25964

274. Cited by: New York v. Grasso, 350 F. Supp. 2d 498, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25044, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2842 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN24{Caution}

350 F. Supp. 2d 498 p.500

275. Cited by: Fin. & Trading, Ltd. v. Rhodia S.A., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24148, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93046 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24148

276. Cited by: Port Auth. v. Am. Warehousing of N.Y., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23121 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23121

277. Cited by: Orange County Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp. (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( "MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig.), 364 F. Supp. 2d 329, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22100, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17197 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

364 F. Supp. 2d 329 p.332

278. Cited by: Rubin v. MasterCard Int'l, LLC, 342 F. Supp. 2d 217, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20528 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

342 F. Supp. 2d 217 p.219

279. Cited by: Page 42 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

City of Park City v. Alon USA Energy Inc. (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig.) , 341 F. Supp. 2d 386, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17723, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17129, 59 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1520 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

341 F. Supp. 2d 386 p.396

280. Cited by: Fisher v. Silverstein, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17278 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17278

281. Followed by, Cited by: City of New York v. Verizon New York, Inc., 331 F. Supp. 2d 222, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16435 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

Followed by: 331 F. Supp. 2d 222 p.226 Cited by: 331 F. Supp. 2d 222 p.225

282. Cited by: Galison v. Greenberg, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14915 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14915

283. Cited by: Farace v. Pereira, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13902 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13902

284. Cited by: General Mar. Mgmt., LLC v. ST Shipping & Transp., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10759,2004 A.M.C. 1591, 26 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1534 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN17{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10759

285. Cited by: Williams v. Comcast Cablevision of New Haven, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 2d 177, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2289, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10390 (D. Conn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

322 F. Supp. 2d 177 p.181

286. Cited by: Page 43 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Campbell v. Kane, Kessler, P.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10059, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2095 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10059

287. Cited by: 1199 Hous. Corp. v. White, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8917 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8917

288. Cited by: Credit Suisse First Boston LLC v. Chai, 317 F. Supp. 2d 380, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7545 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

317 F. Supp. 2d 380 p.381

289. Cited by: Jacobs v. ABN--Amro Bank N.V., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6888 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6888

290. Cited by: HSBC Bank, USA v. Norley, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6238 (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6238

291. Cited by: In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 342 F. Supp. 2d 147, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4068 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25 {Caution}

342 F. Supp. 2d 147 p.159

292. Cited by: Virgilio v. Motorola, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 504, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1194 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Positive}

307 F. Supp. 2d 504 p.512

293. Cited by: JK&E P'ship v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 587 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 587

294. Cited by: Page 44 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Chille v. United Airlines, 304 F. Supp. 2d 466, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Analysis}

304 F. Supp. 2d 466 p.469

295. Cited by: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Vill. of Union Springs, 293 F. Supp. 2d 183, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21578 (N.D.N.Y 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN9 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

293 F. Supp. 2d 183 p.188

296. Followed by: Oakes v. Roncalli Health Care Mgmt., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24448 (D. Conn. Nov. 24, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24448

297. Cited by: Bish v. Aquarion Servs. Co., 289 F. Supp. 2d 134, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18846, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1067, 173 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2725 (D. Conn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

289 F. Supp. 2d 134 p.147

298. Cited by: Panizza v. Mattel, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17228, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1469 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN16{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17228

299. Cited by: Fischer v. MasterCard Int'l, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15888 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15888

300. Cited by: Schrank v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A. (In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig.) , 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15819 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2003){Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15819

301. Followed by: Savalle v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 31, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24087 (D. Conn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Cited}

289 F. Supp. 2d 31 p.33

302. Cited by: Page 45 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Heyer v. Morris Okun, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14495, 173 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2330 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14495

303. Cited by: Fermin v. Moriarty, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13367 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13367

304. Cited by: Rothaupt v. UNUM Provident Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12794, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1987 (N.D.N.Y July 25, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12794

305. Cited by: Berisic v. Winckelman, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12759 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12759

306. Cited by: Couloute v. Hunt, Leibert, Chester & Jacobson, LLC, 295 B.R. 689, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12880 (D. Conn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN25 {Analysis}

295 B.R. 689 p.691

307. Cited by: Hickey v. City of New York (In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig.) , 270 F. Supp. 2d 357, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10397 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 , HN25{Caution}

270 F. Supp. 2d 357 p.366

308. Cited by: Heredia Mendez v. American Airlines, Inc. (In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, N.Y.) , 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7540 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN9, HN10, HN11{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7540

309. Cited by: Hennessy v. City of Long Beach, 258 F. Supp. 2d 200, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6955 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

258 F. Supp. 2d 200 p.203 Page 46 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

310. Cited by: Atlantis Health Plan, Inc. v. Local 713, I.B.O.T.U., 258 F. Supp. 2d 284, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6378, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1719 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

258 F. Supp. 2d 284 p.289

311. Cited by: Speter v. Berkeley College, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6244 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6244

312. Cited by: Calf Island Cmty. Trust, Inc. v. YMCA, 263 F. Supp. 2d 400, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6144 (D. Conn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN18, HN24{Caution}

263 F. Supp. 2d 400 p.402

313. Cited by: N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Ebbers (In re WorldCom Sec. Litig.) , 293 B.R. 308, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2790, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2076 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

293 B.R. 308 p.328

314. Cited by: Wilds v. UPS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8518 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN24{Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8518

315. Cited by: Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 698, 2003--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P73938 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 698

316. Cited by: N. County Communs. Corp. v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788, 2002--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73896 (N.D.N.Y 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

233 F. Supp. 2d 381 p.384 233 F. Supp. 2d 381 p.387

317. Cited by: Dunlop--McCullenv. Pascarella, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21854, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2454 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Positive} Page 47 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21854

318. Cited by: New York v. Justin, 237 F. Supp. 2d 368, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24702 (W.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Analysis}

237 F. Supp. 2d 368 p.371 237 F. Supp. 2d 368 p.375

319. Cited by: Spagnuolo v. Port Auth., 245 F. Supp. 2d 518, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19989 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

245 F. Supp. 2d 518 p.520

320. Cited by: CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Westchester Terrace at Crisﬁeld Condo., 235 F. Supp. 2d 243, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22607 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

235 F. Supp. 2d 243 p.252

321. Cited by: DeGeorge v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19836 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19836

322. Cited by: In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 222 F. Supp. 2d 326, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17211 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18 , HN24{Positive}

222 F. Supp. 2d 326 p.330

323. Cited by: In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16503, 2002--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73875 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16503

324. Cited by: Aquilina C. Lim MD PC v. Saftchick, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14477 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14477 Page 48 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

325. Cited by: T & M Meat Fair, Inc. v. UFCW, Local 174, 210 F. Supp. 2d 443, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12637, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1783 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Analysis}

210 F. Supp. 2d 443 p.448

326. Cited by: United Mut. Houses, L.P. v. Andujar, 230 F. Supp. 2d 349, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12312 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

230 F. Supp. 2d 349 p.350

327. Cited by: Funeral Fin. Sys. v. Solex Express, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6829 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 {Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6829

328. Cited by: Geller v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5995 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11, HN18, HN24 {Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5995

329. Cited by: Briarpatch Ltd. L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 246, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4974 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Warning}

194 F. Supp. 2d 246 p.254

330. Cited by: Curtin v. Port Auth., 183 F. Supp. 2d 664, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1996 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

183 F. Supp. 2d 664 p.667

331. Cited by: In re Bd. of Trs. of the Huntington Free Library & Reading Room, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1382 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24 , HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1382

332. Cited by: Tasini v. New York Times Co., 184 F. Supp. 2d 350, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1141, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1407, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1832 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Analysis} Page 49 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

184 F. Supp. 2d 350 p.358

333. Cited by: Zuri--Invest AG v. Natwest Fin. Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 189, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17495, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91630 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Analysis}

177 F. Supp. 2d 189 p.195

334. Cited by: Macro v. Indep. Health Ass'n, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 427, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21156 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Cited}

180 F. Supp. 2d 427 p.431

335. Cited by: In re Ciproﬂoxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 166 F. Supp. 2d 740, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15386, 2001-- 2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73465 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

166 F. Supp. 2d 740 p.747

336. Cited by: AM Prop. Holding Corp. v. Local 32B--32JSEIU, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16108, 170 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2937, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11184 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16108

337. Cited by: CPS Elec., Ltd. v. United States, 166 F. Supp. 2d 727, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12830, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5747, 2001--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50610 (N.D.N.Y 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

166 F. Supp. 2d 727 p.731

338. Cited by: Cahoon v. IBEW Local 261, 175 F. Supp. 2d 220, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19892, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11220 (D. Conn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Cited}

175 F. Supp. 2d 220 p.225

339. Followed by: Salomon Smith Barney v. McDonnell, 201 F.R.D. 297, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8213 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

201 F.R.D. 297 p.302

340. Cited by: Page 50 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Kittner v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4883 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4883

341. Cited by: Bengis v. NY Power Auth. (In re Nuclear Generation Emples. Ass'n), 145 F. Supp. 2d 291, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4409 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

145 F. Supp. 2d 291 p.296

342. Cited by: Loussides v. Am. Online, Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 211, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19899 (D. Conn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

175 F. Supp. 2d 211 p.213

343. Cited by: DeCarlo v. Archie Comic Publ'ns, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 497, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 386, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1593 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

127 F. Supp. 2d 497 p.503

344. Cited by: Gustafson v. Kennametal, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2146 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173

345. Cited by: Altman v. Bayer Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 666, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18980, 2001--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P73196 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Caution}

125 F. Supp. 2d 666 p.670

346. Cited by: Towne v. Nat'l Life of Vt., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 2d 604, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19858, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2805 (D. Vt. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

130 F. Supp. 2d 604 p.606 130 F. Supp. 2d 604 p.607

347. Cited by: Page 51 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bellido--Sullivanv. American Int'l Group, 123 F. Supp. 2d 161, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16970, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59092 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Positive}

123 F. Supp. 2d 161 p.163 123 F. Supp. 2d 161 p.165

348. Cited by: Costigan & Co., P.C. v. Costigan, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16406 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16406

349. Cited by: Frayler v. New York Stock Exch., 118 F. Supp. 2d 448, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15666 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

118 F. Supp. 2d 448 p.450

350. Cited by: Al--Jundi v. Mancusi, 113 F. Supp. 2d 441, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16006, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2028 (W.D.N.Y. 2000){Analysis}

164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2028 p.2031

351. Cited by: Carrabus v. Schneider, 111 F. Supp. 2d 204, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11883, 79 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40242 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Positive}

111 F. Supp. 2d 204 p.208

352. Cited by: Donovan v. Rothman, 106 F. Supp. 2d 513, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10065 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Caution}

106 F. Supp. 2d 513 p.515

353. Cited by: First Am. Casino Corp. v. Eastern Pequot Nation, 175 F. Supp. 2d 205, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21552 (D. Conn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

175 F. Supp. 2d 205 p.207

354. Cited by: Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Price, 105 F. Supp. 2d 46, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12851 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Positive}

105 F. Supp. 2d 46 p.53 Page 52 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

355. Cited by: Haggerty by Haggerty v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharms., 79 F. Supp. 2d 182, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Positive}

79 F. Supp. 2d 182 p.185

356. Cited by: Lee v. Trans Am. Trucking Serv., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22336 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22336

357. Cited by: Perpetual Secs., Inc. v. Yu Min Wang, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12639 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12639

358. Cited by: County of Broome v. Harford, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12530 (N.D.N.Y July 9, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12530

359. Cited by: Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. KLLM, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 315, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11114 (D. Vt. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

58 F. Supp. 2d 315 p.317

360. Cited by: Rand v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the U.S., 49 F. Supp. 2d 111, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6842 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 {Positive}

49 F. Supp. 2d 111 p.115

361. Cited by: Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. v. Maltz, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708

362. Cited by: TKO Fleet Enters. v. District 15, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aero. Workers, 72 F. Supp. 2d 83, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20515, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10642 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

72 F. Supp. 2d 83 p.86 Page 53 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

363. Cited by: In re Pfohl Bros. Landﬁll Litig., 67 F. Supp. 2d 177, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14879 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN20, HN25 {Analysis}

67 F. Supp. 2d 177 p.183

364. Cited by: Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 188, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 608 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Positive}

34 F. Supp. 2d 188 p.191

365. Cited by: Schaeffer v. Cavallero, 29 F. Supp. 2d 184, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19197 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution}

29 F. Supp. 2d 184 p.185

366. Cited by: County of Suffolk v. CBS Lines, 28 F. Supp. 2d 101, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18713 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Cited}

28 F. Supp. 2d 101 p.103

367. Cited by: Glendora v. Pinkerton Sec. & Detective Servs., 25 F. Supp. 2d 447, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18415 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

25 F. Supp. 2d 447 p.450

368. Cited by: Meinsen v. Reichle, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17963 (D. Conn. Oct. 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17963

369. Cited by: Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 74, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17609 (D. Conn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

25 F. Supp. 2d 74 p.78

370. Cited by: Cecere v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15100, 1998--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P72363 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN18{Caution} Page 54 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

371. Followed by, Cited by: Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 384, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9716 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 11 F. Supp. 2d 384 p.391 Cited by: 11 F. Supp. 2d 384 p.389

372. Cited by: Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Logic Constr. Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 351, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7805 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN29{Cited}

7 F. Supp. 2d 351 p.359

373. Cited by: Grunwald v. Physicians Health Servs., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3672 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3672

374. Cited by: Yankee Gas Servs. Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15978 (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15978

375. Cited by: Schepis v. Local Union No. 17, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 989 F. Supp. 511, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2871 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

989 F. Supp. 511 p.514

376. Cited by: Wallace v. Wiedenbeck, 985 F. Supp. 288, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175 (N.D.N.Y 1998){Cited}

985 F. Supp. 288 p.291

377. Cited by: New York v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4

378. Cited by: Page 55 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cattaraugus County v. Keller, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20193 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

379. Cited by: Eternal Vigilance Soc'y v. Steinbrenner, 45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1637 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1997){Cited}

45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1637 p.1638

380. Cited by: RTC v. City of New York, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15711 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

381. Cited by: New York City Sch. Constr. Auth. v. Bedell Assocs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15597 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17{Cited}

382. Cited by: Fisher v. Building Serv. 32B--JHealth Fund, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12886 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Analysis}

383. Cited by: Amalgamated Lithographers, Local One v. Armen Graphics (In re Armen Digital Graphics) , 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11938, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2301 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Positive}

157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2301 p.2306

384. Cited by: Renfrew Ctr. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5088 (N.D.N.Y Apr. 10, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

385. Cited by: Hyatt Corp. v. Stanton, 945 F. Supp. 675, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17549 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

945 F. Supp. 675 p.691

386. Cited by: Seisay v. Compagnie Nationale Air Fr., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16908 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

387. Cited by: Avoca Natural Gas Storage v. Concerned Citizens, 939 F. Supp. 223, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15118 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution} Page 56 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

939 F. Supp. 223 p.225

388. Cited by: Seaver v. Yellow Freight Sys., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15915 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Caution}

389. Cited by: Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 938 F. Supp. 1158, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12313 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution}

938 F. Supp. 1158 p.1165

390. Cited by: Borek v. Weinreb Mgmt., 933 F. Supp. 357, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10449 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

933 F. Supp. 357 p.360 933 F. Supp. 357 p.361

391. Cited by: Tisdale v. A.G. Edwards & Sons (In re NASDAQ Market--Makers Antitrust Litig.) , 929 F. Supp. 174, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8923, 1996--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P71491 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

929 F. Supp. 174 p.178

392. Cited by: Still v. DeBuono, 927 F. Supp. 125, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7493, 17 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

927 F. Supp. 125 p.129

393. Cited by: Moog Controls v. Moog, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 427, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6548 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16{Cited}

923 F. Supp. 427 p.430

394. Followed by, Cited by: Concerned Citizens v. Town of Avoca Planning Bd., 919 F. Supp. 643, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3691 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11 , HN12, HN15, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 919 F. Supp. 643 p.648 Cited by: 919 F. Supp. 643 p.647 919 F. Supp. 643 p.649 919 F. Supp. 643 p.650 Page 57 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

395. Cited by: In re 17,325 Liters of Liquor, 918 F. Supp. 51, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2366 (N.D.N.Y 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN12{Cited}

918 F. Supp. 51 p.54

396. Followed by, Cited by: Vermont v. Oncor Communs., 166 F.R.D. 313, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1641 (D. Vt. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Positive}

Followed by: 166 F.R.D. 313 p.318 Cited by: 166 F.R.D. 313 p.316 166 F.R.D. 313 p.317

397. Cited by: Greene v. Hawes, 913 F. Supp. 136, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 493 (N.D.N.Y 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

913 F. Supp. 136 p.142

398. Limited by: Hodder v. Schoharie County Child Dev. Council, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19049 (N.D.N.Y Nov. 14, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

399. Cited by: 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island R.R., 903 F. Supp. 393, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16668 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25 {Positive}

903 F. Supp. 393 p.396

400. Cited by: Wilhelm v. Sunrise Northeast, 923 F. Supp. 330, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20982, 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655 (D. Conn. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

923 F. Supp. 330 p.335

401. Cited by: Wilhelm v. Sunrise Northeast, 923 F. Supp. 330, 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655 (D. Conn. 1995){Analysis}

151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655 p.2658

402. Cited by: Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, 897 F. Supp. 168, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13232 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Analysis} Page 58 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

897 F. Supp. 168 p.170

403. Cited by: Shaﬁi v. British Airways, 895 F. Supp. 451, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10865, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2752 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Warning}

895 F. Supp. 451 p.456

404. Cited by: Patrick v. Francis, 887 F. Supp. 481, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6815 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

887 F. Supp. 481 p.485

405. Cited by: Frys v. General Motors Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7155 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

406. Cited by: Reed v. Cohen, 876 F. Supp. 25, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2335 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN25{Analysis}

876 F. Supp. 25 p.27 876 F. Supp. 25 p.28

407. Cited by: Box Tree S. v. Bitterman, 873 F. Supp. 833, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 515, 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN24, HN25{Positive}

873 F. Supp. 833 p.836 873 F. Supp. 833 p.837 873 F. Supp. 833 p.839

408. Cited by: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Doe, 868 F. Supp. 532, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15678 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN18 {Cited}

868 F. Supp. 532 p.539

409. Cited by: D'Amore v. Stangle & Denigris, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20691 (D. Conn. Oct. 18, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

410. Cited by: Hodges v. Demchuk, 866 F. Supp. 730, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11935 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Caution} Page 59 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

866 F. Supp. 730 p.733

411. Cited by: Hess v. B & B Plastics Div. of Metal Cladding, 862 F. Supp. 31, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12743 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

862 F. Supp. 31 p.32

412. Cited by: Costantini v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 859 F. Supp. 89, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10469 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

859 F. Supp. 89 p.90

413. Cited by: Satahoo v. Tabard Copley Graphics, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9929 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24

414. Cited by: Satahoo v. Tabard Copley Graphics, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9840 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24

415. Cited by: Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4670, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1911 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN18, HN24{Caution}

416. Followed by, Explained by: Memorial Hosp. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1911 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 1994){Positive}

Followed by: 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1911 p.1912 Explained by: 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1911 p.1916

417. Cited by: Howard v. National Educ. Ass'n, 849 F. Supp. 12, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4515 (N.D.N.Y 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

849 F. Supp. 12 p.15

418. Cited by: Lopez v. Time Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2802, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2247 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2247 p.2249 Page 60 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

419. Cited by: Nealy v. United States Healthcare HMO, 844 F. Supp. 966, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution}

844 F. Supp. 966 p.970

420. Cited by: Old Country Iron Works v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417, 842 F. Supp. 75, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17030, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3085 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

842 F. Supp. 75 p.77

421. Cited by: Ludwig v. Nynex Serv. Co., 838 F. Supp. 769, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16305 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

838 F. Supp. 769 p.792

422. Cited by: Water's Edge Habitat v. Pulipati, 837 F. Supp. 501, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13810 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

837 F. Supp. 501 p.505

423. Cited by: Laramee v. French & Bean Co., 830 F. Supp. 803, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13408, 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2997 (D. Vt. 1993){Cited}

830 F. Supp. 803 p.806

424. Cited by: Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Local No. 105 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices etc., 825 F. Supp. 10, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13463 (N.D.N.Y 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

825 F. Supp. 10 p.13

425. Cited by: Shackelton v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 817 F. Supp. 277, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4159 (N.D.N.Y 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

817 F. Supp. 277 p.285

426. Cited by: Thompson v. Herman's Sporting Goods, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1267 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited} Page 61 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

427. Cited by: Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo, 813 F. Supp. 996, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1551 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Warning}

813 F. Supp. 996 p.1001

428. Cited by: Algie v. MCI Int'l, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 396 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

429. Cited by: Roger Nasiff Assoc., Inc. v. Micro Med, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15250 (N.D.N.Y Oct. 2, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

430. Followed by: In re Prudential Secur., Inc., 795 F. Supp. 657, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11353 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

795 F. Supp. 657 p.658

431. Cited by: Ismail v. Barad, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10927 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN24{Cited}

432. Cited by: Robinson v. Eichler, 795 F. Supp. 1253, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8695 (D. Conn. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN18{Analysis}

795 F. Supp. 1253 p.1259

433. Cited by: Holt v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6697 (W.D.N.Y. May 6, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

434. Followed by, Cited by: Albradco, Inc. v. Bevona, 788 F. Supp. 786, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4025, 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2276, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10477 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 788 F. Supp. 786 p.790 788 F. Supp. 786 p.791 788 F. Supp. 786 p.792 Cited by: 788 F. Supp. 786 p.789

435. Followed by, Cited by: Page 62 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Barnhart--Graham Auto, Inc. v. Green Mountain Bank, 786 F. Supp. 394, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3584 (D. Vt. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

Followed by: 786 F. Supp. 394 p.396 Cited by: 786 F. Supp. 394 p.396

436. Cited by: Platzer v. Sloan--Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 787 F. Supp. 360, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2403, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1845 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) {Caution}

787 F. Supp. 360 p.366

437. Explained by: Platzer v. Sloan--Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1845 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 1992){Positive}

22 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1845 p.1849

438. Cited by: Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 917 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

781 F. Supp. 934 p.945

439. Cited by: Newmark & Lewis, Inc. v. Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 776 F. Supp. 102, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19053, 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11080 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

776 F. Supp. 102 p.105

440. Cited by: Weingord v. Western Union World Communications, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6963 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

441. Cited by: Holt v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., 802 F. Supp. 866, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20886 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN25 {Positive}

802 F. Supp. 866 p.868 802 F. Supp. 866 p.869

442. Cited by: J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. New York, 753 F. Supp. 497, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17131 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29 {Caution} Page 63 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

753 F. Supp. 497 p.500 753 F. Supp. 497 p.503

443. Cited by: Wood v. Vermont Ins. Management, Inc., 749 F. Supp. 558, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15045, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 510, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1662 (D. Vt. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

749 F. Supp. 558 p.559 749 F. Supp. 558 p.560

444. Cited by: Sargeant v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 478 etc., 746 F. Supp. 241, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12390, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1015 (D. Conn. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

746 F. Supp. 241 p.244

445. Cited by: Altieri v. Cigna Dental Health, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 61, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17051 (D. Conn. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

753 F. Supp. 61 p.63

446. Cited by: Hardmond v. John Hancock Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6602, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25

447. Cited by: In re Marsh Estate, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5920, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1966 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN29{Cited}

448. Cited by: Engley v. Monteﬁore Medical Center, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5766 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10

449. Cited by: Raff v. Maggio, 734 F. Supp. 592, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4582, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3240, 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10295 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Caution}

734 F. Supp. 592 p.594

450. Cited by: Gonzalez v. Dynair Service Co., 728 F. Supp. 100, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 701, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39787, 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1744, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 181, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2619, 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56217 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive} Page 64 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

728 F. Supp. 100 p.102

451. Cited by: People by Abrams v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 162, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13540, 1989--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P68876 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Questioned}

728 F. Supp. 162 p.166 728 F. Supp. 162 p.173 728 F. Supp. 162 p.184

452. Cited by: Lindner Fund, Inc. v. Waldbaum, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16012, 1989--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P68851 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20 , HN25

453. Cited by: Corren v. New York University, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8446 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

454. Cited by: Gaedeke v. Ferrani Fashions, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6979 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18

455. Cited by: International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 967 v. General Electric Co., 713 F. Supp. 547, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5808, 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40112, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 99, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2642, 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10022 (N.D.N.Y 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

713 F. Supp. 547 p.551 713 F. Supp. 547 p.558

456. Cited by: Fisher v. White, 715 F. Supp. 37, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6886 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Cited}

715 F. Supp. 37 p.39

457. Cited by: Lagudi v. Long Island R. Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2291 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN18

458. Cited by: Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Bock, 696 F. Supp. 957, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11702, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94057 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution} Page 65 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

696 F. Supp. 957 p.963 696 F. Supp. 957 p.964

459. Cited by: New York v. Simithis, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5439 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

460. Cited by: Foxrun Workshop, Ltd. v. Klone Mfg., Inc., 686 F. Supp. 86, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4344, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1655 (S.D.N.Y. 1988){Caution}

686 F. Supp. 86 p.90

461. Cited by: Staffer v. Staten Island Hospital, 686 F. Supp. 400, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6377 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

462. Cited by: Dragone v. M.J. Raynes, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 720, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10987, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 347, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2635, 113 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11740 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

695 F. Supp. 720 p.723

463. Cited by: Jeltsch v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2502, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10446 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Analysis}

464. Cited by: Corren v. New York Univ., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11456, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1595 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Analysis}

465. Cited by: Paradis v. United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney Div., 672 F. Supp. 67, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10064, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1221, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3343, 113 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11751 (D. Conn. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

672 F. Supp. 67 p.69

466. Cited by: New York by Abrams v. Anderson, 671 F. Supp. 220, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9118 (W.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

671 F. Supp. 220 p.223

467. Cited by: Page 66 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H etc. v. Feinstein, 671 F. Supp. 258, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8638, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10989 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Cited}

671 F. Supp. 258 p.260

468. Cited by: Isaacs v. Group Health, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 306, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7993, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1128 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

668 F. Supp. 306 p.309 668 F. Supp. 306 p.310 668 F. Supp. 306 p.311

469. Cited by: Crazy Eddie, Inc. v. Cotter, 666 F. Supp. 503, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6667 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN23, HN24, HN25{Cited}

666 F. Supp. 503 p.508 666 F. Supp. 503 p.509 666 F. Supp. 503 p.510 666 F. Supp. 503 p.511

470. Cited by: Banco de Ponce v. Hinsdale Supermarket Corp., 663 F. Supp. 813, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5802 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

663 F. Supp. 813 p.816 663 F. Supp. 813 p.818

471. Cited by: Warner Cable Communs. Co. v. Weiner, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16836 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Cited}

472. Cited by: Oseekey v. Spaulding Fibre Co., 655 F. Supp. 1119, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2084 (W.D.N.Y. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

655 F. Supp. 1119 p.1121

473. Cited by: Sun Reﬁning & Marketing Co. v. D'Arpino, 112 F.R.D. 668, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16820 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13{Cited}

112 F.R.D. 668 p.670

474. Cited by: Page 67 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

International Tin Council v. Amalgamet, Inc., 645 F. Supp. 879, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18883 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18, HN20 , HN24{Warning}

645 F. Supp. 879 p.881

475. Explained by: Wurdeman v. Miller, 633 F. Supp. 20, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27231 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

633 F. Supp. 20 p.21

476. Cited by: Sforza v. Kenco Constructional Contracting, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1493, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28889 (D. Conn. 1986){Positive}

674 F. Supp. 1493 p.1494

477. Cited by: Sforza v. Kenco Constructional Contracting, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 489, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1181 (D. Conn. 1986){Caution}

629 F. Supp. 489 p.490

478. Cited by: Ferro v. Association of Catholic Schools, 623 F. Supp. 1161, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12755, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2068, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10045 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Positive}

623 F. Supp. 1161 p.1166

479. Cited by: RICHARD v. ROSENMAN COLIN FREUND LEWIS & COHEN, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15483 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

480. Cited by: Crocco v. Local 333, United Marine Div., etc., 612 F. Supp. 1072, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18158 (N.D.N.Y 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN20{Cited}

612 F. Supp. 1072 p.1076

481. Cited by: United States v. Doherty, 615 F. Supp. 755, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18575 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

615 F. Supp. 755 p.757

482. Distinguished by, Cited by: Page 68 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Deats v. Joseph Swantak, Inc., 619 F. Supp. 973, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18756, 226 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 764 (N.D.N.Y 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Analysis}

Distinguished by: 619 F. Supp. 973 p.977 Cited by: 619 F. Supp. 973 p.981

483. Cited by: In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23337 (E.D.N.Y. 1984){Warning}

597 F. Supp. 740 p.846

484. Cited by: MCI Communications Corp. v. Amato, 587 F. Supp. 1008, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15030 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

587 F. Supp. 1008 p.1009

485. Cited by: Cuomo v. Long Island Lighting Co., 589 F. Supp. 1387, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15860 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11, HN18, HN24 {Warning}

589 F. Supp. 1387 p.1392 589 F. Supp. 1387 p.1393 589 F. Supp. 1387 p.1395 589 F. Supp. 1387 p.1396 589 F. Supp. 1387 p.1397

486. Cited by: District No. 1--Paciﬁc Coast Dist., etc. v. Trinidad Corp., 583 F. Supp. 262, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18558 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Caution}

583 F. Supp. 262 p.266

487. Cited by: In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 580 F. Supp. 690, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19317 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Questioned}

580 F. Supp. 690 p.698

488. Cited by: La Freniere v. General Electric Co., 572 F. Supp. 857, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12496, 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3000 (N.D.N.Y 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN25 {Cited}

572 F. Supp. 857 p.859 Page 69 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

572 F. Supp. 857 p.861 3RD CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

489. Cited by: In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. & Guar. Nat'l Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortg. Loan Litig., 418 F.3d 277, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17471 (3d Cir. Pa. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN11, HN17{Caution}

418 F.3d 277 p.293

490. Cited by: DeBiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp., 144 Fed. Appx. 245, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16370 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16370

491. Cited by: Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 398 F.3d 294, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2660, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93116 (3d Cir. Pa. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

398 F.3d 294 p.298

492. Cited by: Pascack Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22632, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2575, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 859 (3d Cir. N.J. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN11, HN19, HN22, HN27, HN28, HN29{Caution}

388 F.3d 393 p.398 388 F.3d 393 p.404

493. Cited by: Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20963, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1589, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3038 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN24, HN25{Positive}

386 F.3d 246 p.252

494. Cited by: DiFelice v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 346 F.3d 442, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20942, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1417 (3d Cir. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

346 F.3d 442 p.446

495. Cited by: Briones v. Bon Secours Health Sys., 69 Fed. Appx. 530, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12997 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

69 Fed. Appx. 530 p.534 Page 70 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

496. Cited by: Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14189 (3d Cir. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

296 F.3d 160 p.163

497. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: U.S. Express Lines, LTD. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2416, 2002 A.M.C. 823 (3d Cir. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11 , HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 281 F.3d 383 p.397 Cited by: 281 F.3d 383 p.389

498. Cited by: Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 245 F.3d 266, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2345 (3d Cir. N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN29{Caution}

245 F.3d 266 p.271 245 F.3d 266 p.274

499. Cited by: Lazorko v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 237 F.3d 242, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33792, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1545, 48 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 595 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Caution}

237 F.3d 242 p.248

500. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F.3d 220, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 16976, 79 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40260, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 417 (3d Cir. N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17{Warning}

219 F.3d 220 p.228

501. Cited by: Wood v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 207 F.3d 674, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5186, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2868 (3d Cir. N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

207 F.3d 674 p.679

502. Cited by: Bauman v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (In re U.S. Healthcare, Inc.), 193 F.3d 151, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22464, 23 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1681 (3d Cir. N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Caution}

193 F.3d 151 p.160 Page 71 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

503. Distinguished by: Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 161 F.3d 156, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 28608, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90324, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9597 (3d Cir. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

161 F.3d 156 p.162

504. Followed by, Cited by: Erienet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, 156 F.3d 513, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23931, 13 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 956 (3d Cir. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 156 F.3d 513 p.518 156 F.3d 513 p.520 Cited by: 156 F.3d 513 p.519

505. Cited by: Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Littlejohn, 155 F.3d 206, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 20809, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2078, 136 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10229 (3d Cir. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Positive}

155 F.3d 206 p.208

506. Cited by: Morel v. INS, 144 F.3d 248, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 9713 (3d Cir. 1998){Caution}

144 F.3d 248 p.250

507. Cited by: Joyce v. RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., 126 F.3d 166, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 24917, 4 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P4--149,7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 398 (3d Cir. N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

126 F.3d 166 p.171

508. Cited by: Jordan v. Federal Express Corp., 116 F.3d 1005, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14801, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1209 (3d Cir. Pa. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

116 F.3d 1005 p.1013

509. Cited by: Bollman Hat Co. v. Root, 112 F.3d 113, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7613, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1005 (3d Cir. Pa. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

112 F.3d 113 p.115 Page 72 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

510. Cited by: Antol v. Esposto, 100 F.3d 1111, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 30188, 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2841, 133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11762, 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1003 (3d Cir. Pa. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

100 F.3d 1111 p.1115 100 F.3d 1111 p.1117

511. Cited by: Mints v. Educational Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29500 (3d Cir. N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

99 F.3d 1253 p.1255

512. Cited by: Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, 57 F.3d 350, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15034, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1473 (3d Cir. Pa. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

57 F.3d 350 p.353

513. Cited by: Taylor v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 49 F.3d 982, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 4622, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1033, 95 TNT 61--16(3d Cir. Pa. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Caution}

49 F.3d 982 p.988

514. Cited by: Goepel v. National Postal Mail Handlers Union, 36 F.3d 306, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 26970, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2046 (3d Cir. N.J. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

36 F.3d 306 p.310 36 F.3d 306 p.311

515. Cited by: Virgin Islands Hous. Auth. v. Coastal Gen. Constr. Servs. Corp., 27 F.3d 911, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15769, 30 V.I. 417 (1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

27 F.3d 911 p.915

516. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: United Wire, Metal & Mach. Health & Welfare Fund v. Morristown Memorial Hosp., 995 F.2d 1179, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 11112, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2182, 123 A.L.R. Fed. 781 (3d Cir. N.J. 1993){Caution}

995 F.2d 1179 p.1197 Page 73 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

517. Cited by: Coar v. Kazimir, 990 F.2d 1413, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7817, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1904 (3d Cir. N.J. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

990 F.2d 1413 p.1423

518. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Smith v. Industrial Valley Title Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 90, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2322 (3d Cir. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN22, HN25 {Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 957 F.2d 90 p.94 Cited by: 957 F.2d 90 p.92

519. Cited by: Krashna v. Oliver Realty, Inc., 895 F.2d 111, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1243, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 111, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2532, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11886 (3d Cir. Pa. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN23, HN25{Caution}

895 F.2d 111 p.115

520. Cited by: Berda v. CBS, Inc., 881 F.2d 20, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10298, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 904, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3073, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11341 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Caution}

881 F.2d 20 p.21

521. Cited by: Allstate Ins. Co. v. 65 Sec. Plan, 879 F.2d 90, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10180, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1289 (3d Cir. Pa. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

879 F.2d 90 p.94

522. Cited by: Railway Labor Executives Asso. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 858 F.2d 936, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14058, 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2673, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10822 (3d Cir. Pa. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

858 F.2d 936 p.939 858 F.2d 936 p.940

523. Cited by: J. Filiberto Sanitation v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 857 F.2d 913, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12187, 28 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1797, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 21303 (3d Cir. N.J. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN23{Warning} Page 74 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

857 F.2d 913 p.917

524. Explained by: Airco Industrial Gases, Inc. Div. of BOC Group, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.2d 1028, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8994, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2305, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 830 (3d Cir. Del. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

850 F.2d 1028 p.1033

525. Cited by: Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund, 847 F.2d 113, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7217, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2345 (3d Cir. Pa. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

847 F.2d 113 p.125

526. Followed by, Cited by: United Jersey Banks v. Parell, 783 F.2d 360, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22180, 1986--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P66953 (3d Cir. N.J. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

Followed by: 783 F.2d 360 p.365 783 F.2d 360 p.367 Cited by: 783 F.2d 360 p.365 783 F.2d 360 p.366 783 F.2d 360 p.367

527. Distinguished by, Explained by, Cited by: Northeast Dep't ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20694, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1874 (3d Cir. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

Distinguished by: 764 F.2d 147 p.155 Explained by: 764 F.2d 147 p.165 Cited by: 764 F.2d 147 p.157 764 F.2d 147 p.158

528. Cited by: New Jersey State AFL--CIOv. New Jersey, 747 F.2d 891, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16867, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2465 (3d Cir. N.J. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

747 F.2d 891 p.892 Page 75 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

747 F.2d 891 p.893

529. Cited by: Stibitz v. General Pub. Utils. Corp., 746 F.2d 993, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17400, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20018 (3d Cir. Pa. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Questioned}

746 F.2d 993 p.995 746 F.2d 993 p.996 3RD CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

530. Cited by: Pucci v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50878 (W.D. Pa. July 21, 2006)

531. Followed by: Fosnocht v. Demko, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48635 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48635

532. Cited by: Armstrong v. United States Steel Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22204, 179 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2697 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7 , HN10, HN17

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22204

533. Cited by: Lyden v. Tiger, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16576 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16576

534. Cited by: Laney v. Independence Blue Cross, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11672 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11672

535. Cited by: Adams v. Silverstein, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8921 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8921

536. Cited by: Abrams v. KPMG, LLP, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11090, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1272 (D.N.J. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN11{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11090 Page 76 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

537. Cited by: Floyd v. Saturn of Newark, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466

538. Cited by: Stechler v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1148 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1148

539. Cited by: Therien v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 746 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 746

540. Followed by: Stechler v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39213 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39213

541. Cited by: Bergen Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P. v. Health Prof'l & Allied Emples. Union, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30194 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17 , HN18, HN24{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30194

542. Cited by: Curtis v. Sch. Dist., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26223 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26223

543. Cited by: Meacle v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25341 (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN17{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25341

544. Cited by: Smith v. Del. First Fed. Credit Union, 395 F. Supp. 2d 127, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24827 (D. Del. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25

395 F. Supp. 2d 127 p.131

545. Cited by: Page 77 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

CFTC v. Equity Fin. Group, LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26852 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26852

546. Cited by: UPMC Presby Shadyside v. Whirley Indus., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20960 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN29{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20960

547. Followed by: Ahmad v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20164 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20164

548. Explained by, Cited by: Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., 415 F. Supp. 2d 516, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19967 (E.D. Pa. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18{Positive}

Explained by: 415 F. Supp. 2d 516 p.524 Cited by: 415 F. Supp. 2d 516 p.522

549. Cited by: Gimenez v. Morgan Stanley D.W., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36586 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36586

550. Cited by: Brown v. Catholic Cmty. Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18159 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN11, HN18{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18159

551. Cited by: Cooperstein v. Independence Blue Cross, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15757, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1666 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Positive}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15757

552. Cited by: Floyd v. Saturn of Newark, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13860 (D. Del. July 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13860 Page 78 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

553. Cited by: Thomas v. Friends Rehab. Program, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13762 (E.D. Pa. July 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13762

554. Cited by: Smith v. Team Dodge--Kia, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11556 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11556

555. Cited by: N. Penn Water Auth. v. BAE Sys., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10210, 60 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1594 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10210

556. Cited by: Ratmansky v. Plymouth House Nursing Home, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5713 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5713

557. Cited by: E. Sav. Bank v. Ayers--Fountain, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10120 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10120

558. Cited by: Jamal v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5076 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5076

559. Followed by: City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25151 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25151

560. Followed by: Sodi v. Discover Fin. Servs., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24133 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24133 Page 79 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

561. Cited by: Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20999 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20999

562. Cited by: Mersmann v. Cont'l Airlines, 335 F. Supp. 2d 544, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19064, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59932 (D.N.J. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29

335 F. Supp. 2d 544 p.548

563. Criticized by, Cited by: Stephens v. High Voltage Maint. Co., 323 F. Supp. 2d 650, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12666 (E.D. Pa. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Analysis}

Criticized by: 323 F. Supp. 2d 650 p.653 Cited by: 323 F. Supp. 2d 650 p.652

564. Cited by: Morley v. Phila. Police Dep't, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5496 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5496

565. Cited by: City of Philadelphia v. Greater Canaan Church of God in Christ, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5407 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17 {Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5407

566. Cited by: Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1787, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1707 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1787

567. Cited by: Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 565, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1130 (E.D. Pa. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Positive}

303 F. Supp. 2d 565 p.569

568. Cited by: Group Hospitalization & Med. Servs. v. Merck--MedcoManaged Care, LLP, 295 F. Supp. 2d 457, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22368, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2613 (D.N.J. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited} Page 80 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

295 F. Supp. 2d 457 p.461

569. Cited by: Hilltown Crossings, L.P. v. Clemens Mkts. Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18055 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18055

570. Cited by: Connolly v. Aetna United States Healthcare, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 391, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25494, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1026 (D.N.J. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Cited}

286 F. Supp. 2d 391 p.399

571. Cited by: Carpenters Pension & Annuity Fund v. Banks, 271 F. Supp. 2d 639, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1064 (E.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Analysis}

271 F. Supp. 2d 639 p.643

572. Cited by: Greenﬁeld v. Twin Vision Graphics, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 358, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10802, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1750 (D.N.J. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 {Cited}

268 F. Supp. 2d 358 p.370

573. Cited by: Guckin v. Nagle, 259 F. Supp. 2d 406, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7665 (E.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

259 F. Supp. 2d 406 p.410

574. Cited by: DML Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5618 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5618

575. Cited by: O'Keefe v. Mercedes--BenzUnited States, LLC, 214 F.R.D. 266, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5715 (E.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN11, HN17, HN18{Positive}

214 F.R.D. 266 p.274

576. Cited by: Shadie v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 509, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4954 (M.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive} Page 81 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

254 F. Supp. 2d 509 p.516

577. Followed by, Cited by: JVC Ams. Corp. v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 2d 586, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23273, 2003 A.M.C. 2184 (D.N.J. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN22 , HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 292 F. Supp. 2d 586 p.593 Cited by: 292 F. Supp. 2d 586 p.591

578. Cited by: Teglas v. Eastern Strut Supply, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6577 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6577

579. Cited by: Anthem, Inc. v. Bristol--MyersSquibb Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15762 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN11

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15762

580. Cited by: Cleary v. City of Philadelphia, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4705 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4705

581. Cited by: Neel v. Pippy, 247 F. Supp. 2d 707, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3441 (W.D. Pa. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Cited}

247 F. Supp. 2d 707 p.709

582. Cited by: Menoken v. McNamara, 213 F.R.D. 193, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2692 (D.N.J. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN11, HN20{Caution}

213 F.R.D. 193 p.196

583. Cited by: Roethlein v. Schmidt, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7, HN9, HN10

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061

584. Cited by: Page 82 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Reg'l Employers' Assur. Leagues Voluntary Emples. Beneﬁciary Ass'n Trust v. Sidney Charles Mkts., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1380, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2796 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1380

585. Cited by: Wietschner v. Gilmartin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18997 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18997

586. Cited by: Lancaster County Ofﬁce of Aging v. Schoener, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1342 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN11 , HN17, HN18{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1342

587. Cited by: Gaul v. Neurocare Diagnostic, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 546 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 546

588. Followed by: Dion & Goldberger v. SEPTA, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22248 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22248

589. Cited by: County of Del. v. Gov't Sys., 230 F. Supp. 2d 592, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18770 (E.D. Pa. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

230 F. Supp. 2d 592 p.597

590. Cited by: MCS Servs. v. Johnsen, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16910 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16910

591. Cited by: Envtl. Tectonics Corp. v. Summer Lake Int'l Enters. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16297 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16297

592. Cited by: Page 83 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Gerow v. Kleinerman, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13268 (D.N.J. July 2, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13268

593. Cited by: State Farm Indem. Co. v. Fornaro, 227 F. Supp. 2d 229, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17591 (D.N.J. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN18, HN25{Caution}

227 F. Supp. 2d 229 p.237

594. Cited by: Univ. Tech. Park, Inc. v. Stinson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10845 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10845

595. Cited by: Wyatt, V.I., Inc. v. Virgin Islands, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10584 (D.V.I. June 5, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10584

596. Cited by: Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 204 F. Supp. 2d 796, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9383, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2955 (D.N.J. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

204 F. Supp. 2d 796 p.798

597. Cited by: Logan v. Harris, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7233 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7233

598. Cited by: Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P., 195 F. Supp. 2d 598, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5955, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91760 (D. Del. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Caution}

195 F. Supp. 2d 598 p.602

599. Cited by: Dianese, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3310 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN18{Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3310

600. Cited by: Dianese, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN18{Caution} Page 84 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306

601. Cited by: Dianese, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3305 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN18{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3305

602. Cited by: Hosp. of the Univ. of Pa. v. Bryant, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2867, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2225 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2867

603. Cited by: Sopcak v. Highmark, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10317, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2488 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10317

604. Cited by: Howard Med., Inc. v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1599 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1599

605. Cited by: Feuerzeig v. Innovative Commun. Corp., 174 F. Supp. 2d 349, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19558 (D.V.I. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Cited}

174 F. Supp. 2d 349 p.352 174 F. Supp. 2d 349 p.353 174 F. Supp. 2d 349 p.354

606. Cited by: Burgo v. Volkswagen of Am., 183 F. Supp. 2d 683, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22456 (D.N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

183 F. Supp. 2d 683 p.686

607. Cited by: Swift Elec. Supply Co. v. Twp. of Lakewood, 168 F. Supp. 2d 298, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16366, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2485, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2826 (D.N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN29

168 F. Supp. 2d 298 p.302 Page 85 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

608. Followed by, Cited by: Indeck Me. Energy, L.L.C. v. ISO New Eng. Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 675, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16439 (D. Del. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Analysis}

Followed by: 167 F. Supp. 2d 675 p.685 Cited by: 167 F. Supp. 2d 675 p.684

609. Cited by: Sangmeister v. Airborne Express, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13466, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 699, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11181 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13466

610. Cited by: SANGMEISTER v. AIRBORNE EXPRESS, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15753 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

611. Cited by: McComb v. Neumann Med. Ctr., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10178 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10178

612. Cited by: Longo v. City of Philadelphia, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506

613. Cited by: 84 Lumber Co. v. MRK Techs., Ltd., 145 F. Supp. 2d 675, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12049 (W.D. Pa. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

145 F. Supp. 2d 675 p.677

614. Explained by, Cited by: Dawson v. Ciba--GeigyCorp., USA, 145 F. Supp. 2d 565, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6869 (D.N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

Explained by: 145 F. Supp. 2d 565 p.572 Cited by: 145 F. Supp. 2d 565 p.568 145 F. Supp. 2d 565 p.569 145 F. Supp. 2d 565 p.571 Page 86 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

615. Cited by: Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Caldwell Trucking Co., 154 F. Supp. 2d 870 (D.N.J. 2001){Cited}

154 F. Supp. 2d 870 p.874

616. Cited by: Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Caldwell Trucking Co., 154 F. Supp. 2d 870, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17915 (D.N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17915

617. Cited by: Orlick v. J.D. Carton & Son, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 2d 337, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5724 (D.N.J. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

144 F. Supp. 2d 337 p.343

618. Cited by: Manley v. Augusty, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4911 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4911

619. Cited by: Phillips v. Selig, 157 F. Supp. 2d 419, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3612, 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2182 (E.D. Pa. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

157 F. Supp. 2d 419 p.425

620. Cited by: Cronin v. United States Prof'l Consultants, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2581 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2581

621. Cited by: Stafford v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 133 F. Supp. 2d 384, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3540, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2816 (D.V.I. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

133 F. Supp. 2d 384 p.387

622. Followed by: Rosenkrans v. Wetzel, 131 F. Supp. 2d 609, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1169 (M.D. Pa. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17{Cited}

131 F. Supp. 2d 609 p.613

623. Cited by: Page 87 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3577 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3577

624. Cited by: Orlick v. J.D. Carton & Son, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21475 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21475

625. Cited by: Quarles v. Germantown Hosp. & Community Health Servs., 126 F. Supp. 2d 878, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17120 (E.D. Pa. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25 {Cited}

126 F. Supp. 2d 878 p.880

626. Cited by: Naples v. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Auth., 102 F. Supp. 2d 550, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11586, 165 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2476 (D.N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

102 F. Supp. 2d 550 p.552

627. Cited by: Information Handling Servs. v. LRP Publs., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5187, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28077, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1571 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Analysis}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5187 54 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1571 p.1572

628. Cited by: Intelnet Int'l Corp. v. Worldcom Technologies, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15828 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

629. Cited by: Padilla v. Temple Univ. Hospital/ Psyche Ward Crisis Unit, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3905 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3905

630. Cited by: Morton v. Mylan Pharm., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4047, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2373 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29 {Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4047 Page 88 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

631. Cited by: Zimnoch v. ITT Hartford, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2846 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Questioned}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2846

632. Cited by: Jones v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2705 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2705

633. Cited by: City of Camden v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 541, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 674, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15762 (D.N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Positive}

81 F. Supp. 2d 541 p.545 81 F. Supp. 2d 541 p.546

634. Cited by: Espinosa v. Continental Airlines, 80 F. Supp. 2d 297, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2640, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2266, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10662, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10663 (D.N.J. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

80 F. Supp. 2d 297 p.300

635. Cited by: Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 90 F. Supp. 2d 662, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6742 (W.D. Pa. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Positive}

90 F. Supp. 2d 662 p.665

636. Cited by: Tiemann v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 585, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 502 (E.D. Pa. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

93 F. Supp. 2d 585 p.590

637. Cited by: Horowitz v. Marlton Oncology, P.C., 116 F. Supp. 2d 551, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22335, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9796 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

116 F. Supp. 2d 551 p.553

638. Cited by: Page 89 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

XF Enters. v. BASF Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16834, 1999--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P72699 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 {Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16834

639. Cited by: Gul v. Pamrapo Sav. Bank, 64 F. Supp. 2d 370, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449, 162 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2765, 139 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10603 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

64 F. Supp. 2d 370 p.372

640. Cited by: Valley Nat'l Bank v. Lavecchia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 432, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14777 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN23{Cited}

59 F. Supp. 2d 432 p.435

641. Cited by: McDonald v. Damian, 56 F. Supp. 2d 574, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548 (E.D. Pa. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Cited}

56 F. Supp. 2d 574 p.575

642. Cited by: Snow v. Burden, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6932 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN29{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6932

643. Cited by: Huss v. Green Spring Health Servs., Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5101 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5101

644. Cited by: Cipriano v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2761 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24, HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2761

645. Cited by: MFS Telecom, Inc. v. Intrepid Communs. Solutions, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 478, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8774 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25

39 F. Supp. 2d 478 p.479 Page 90 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

646. Cited by: Ballas v. Tedesco, 41 F. Supp. 2d 531, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2531, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27975 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

41 F. Supp. 2d 531 p.537

647. Cited by: Monmouth--OceanCollection Serv., Inc. v. Klor, 46 F. Supp. 2d 385, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5269 (D.N.J. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

46 F. Supp. 2d 385 p.387

648. Cited by: Imperial Spirits, USA, Inc. v. Trans Marine Int'l Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9586 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9586

649. Cited by: Temptations, Inc. v. Wager, 26 F. Supp. 2d 740, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20800 (D.N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

26 F. Supp. 2d 740 p.743

650. Cited by: Caputo v. United States Health Care Sys., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18583 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18583

651. Cited by: Licursi v. Jamison Plastic Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18554, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1212 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18554 49 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1212 p.1214

652. Cited by: New Jersey v. City of Wildwood, 22 F. Supp. 2d 395, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23557 (D.N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

22 F. Supp. 2d 395 p.400

653. Cited by: Visconti by Visconti v. United States Healthcare, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15691 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15691 Page 91 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

654. Cited by: Gilberg v. Stepan Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 325, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13138 (D.N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN24{Caution}

24 F. Supp. 2d 325 p.347

655. Cited by: Orthotic Sales & Serv. v. La Rosa, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12181 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12181

656. Cited by: Marcone v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ctr., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9189 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9189

657. Cited by: Miller v. Riddle Mem. Hosp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7752 (E.D. Pa. May 28, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7752

658. Cited by: Bellemead Dev. Corp. v. New Jersey State Council of Carpenters Beneﬁt Funds, 11 F. Supp. 2d 500, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8262 (D.N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

11 F. Supp. 2d 500 p.506

659. Cited by: Hill v. Supervisor, Phila. County Probation Dep't, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5092 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN12

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5092

660. Cited by: Reading Anthracite Co. v. Kocher Coal Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238

661. Cited by: Eaccarino v. Canlas, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4904 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4904

662. Cited by: Page 92 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bauman v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 420, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4110 (D.N.J. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Warning}

1 F. Supp. 2d 420 p.422

663. Cited by: Grays Ferry Cogeneration Pshp. v. Peco Energy Co., 998 F. Supp. 542, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3420 (E.D. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Positive}

998 F. Supp. 542 p.552

664. Cited by: Henderson v. Merck & Co., 998 F. Supp. 532, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3419, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2230 (E.D. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9 , HN11, HN22, HN25{Caution}

998 F. Supp. 532 p.536

665. Cited by: Davis v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Lab., 993 F. Supp. 897, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2219 (E.D. Pa. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Caution}

993 F. Supp. 897 p.898

666. Cited by: Hoose v. Jefferson Home Health Care, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1369 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Caution}

667. Cited by: Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 988 F. Supp. 486, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20129, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21004 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

988 F. Supp. 486 p.495 988 F. Supp. 486 p.496

668. Cited by: Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 984 F. Supp. 827, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20317 (M.D. Pa. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Caution}

984 F. Supp. 827 p.829

669. Cited by: Bauchelle v. AT&T Corp., 989 F. Supp. 636, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20703 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Positive}

989 F. Supp. 636 p.641 989 F. Supp. 636 p.642 Page 93 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

670. Cited by: Connors v. Malik, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17342 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN24{Cited}

671. Cited by: Thomas v. Hanley, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13587 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

672. Cited by: Berman v. Abington Radiology Assocs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12322 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

673. Cited by: Eisenman v. Continental Airlines, 974 F. Supp. 425, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17682 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN25{Caution}

974 F. Supp. 425 p.433

674. Cited by: Peek v. Philadelphia Coca--ColaBottling Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10138, 162 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2537 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 , HN25{Cited}

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10138 162 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2537 p.2539

675. Cited by: Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., 969 F. Supp. 907, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9390 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Warning}

969 F. Supp. 907 p.916

676. Cited by: Hoyt v. Edge, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8846, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1268 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN18, HN25{Cited}

21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1268 p.1270

677. Cited by: Township of Whitehall v. Allentown Auto Auction, 966 F. Supp. 385, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8705 (E.D. Pa. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

966 F. Supp. 385 p.386

678. Cited by: Page 94 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Byard v. Qualmed Plans for Health, 966 F. Supp. 354, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7935 (E.D. Pa. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11{Caution}

966 F. Supp. 354 p.357

679. Cited by: Newton v. Tavani, 962 F. Supp. 45, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5831 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

962 F. Supp. 45 p.46

680. Cited by: Alston v. Atlantic Elec. Co., 962 F. Supp. 616, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5632, 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 408 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

962 F. Supp. 616 p.626

681. Cited by: Gyde v. Nutri/System, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4848 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Analysis}

682. Cited by: Sanderson, Thompson, Ratledge & Zimny v. AWACS, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 947, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4189 (D. Del. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN22, HN24, HN25{Caution}

958 F. Supp. 947 p.952 958 F. Supp. 947 p.953

683. Cited by: Lamonica v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1988 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11{Cited}

684. Cited by: Ferraro v. Bell Atl. Co., 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2860 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 1997) {Analysis}

156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2860 p.2862

685. Cited by: Ferraro v. Bell Atl. Co., 955 F. Supp. 354, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2146, 155 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2444, 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2860 (D.N.J. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

955 F. Supp. 354 p.357

686. Cited by: Fulton v. Bell Atl. Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1396, 133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11805 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29 Page 95 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11805

687. Cited by: High Tech Enters. v. Semon, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1393, 1997--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P71892 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Cited}

688. Cited by: Conway v. Peco Energy Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 747 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

689. Cited by: Headen v. Mentor Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 451, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14856 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

690. Cited by: Institute of Pennsylvania Hosp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19212 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29{Cited}

691. Cited by: Delaware County Solid Waste Auth. v. Hinkson Container Serv., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18374 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25

692. Cited by: Raquel v. Educational Mgmt. Corp., 955 F. Supp. 433, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20697, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1434 (W.D. Pa. 1996){Analysis}

955 F. Supp. 433 p.436 955 F. Supp. 433 p.438

693. Cited by: Eisenman v. Continental Airlines, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21688 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

694. Cited by: Raquel v. Education Mgmt. Corp., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21192 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

695. Cited by: Gateway 2000 v. Cyrix Corp., 942 F. Supp. 985, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16011 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

942 F. Supp. 985 p.990 Page 96 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

942 F. Supp. 985 p.991

696. Cited by: Duong by & Through Nguyen v. Township of Manheim, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13812 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18

697. Cited by: Falcone v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12349, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14736 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

698. Cited by: Valentino v. Story--Winn Fuel Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11447 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

699. Cited by: DeCastro v. AWACS, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 541, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12344 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

935 F. Supp. 541 p.552

700. Cited by: Parents United for Better Sch. v. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11167 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7{Caution}

701. Cited by: Eisenman v. Continental Airlines, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21690 (D.N.J. June 25, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Warning}

702. Cited by: Mitchell v. Village Super Mkt., 926 F. Supp. 476, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6986, 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 24, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2695 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Positive}

926 F. Supp. 476 p.478

703. Cited by: Mitchell v. Village Super Mkt., Inc., 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 24, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2695 (D.N.J. May 20, 1996)

71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 24 p.26 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2695 p.2697

704. Cited by: Page 97 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Shapiro v. Middlesex County Mun. Joint Ins. Fund, 930 F. Supp. 1028, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8516, 1996--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P71523 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Cited}

930 F. Supp. 1028 p.1031 930 F. Supp. 1028 p.1032

705. Cited by: Kozar v. AT & T, 923 F. Supp. 67, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8243 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

923 F. Supp. 67 p.70

706. Cited by: Collins v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 949 F. Supp. 1143, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20665, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14706 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

949 F. Supp. 1143 p.1150 949 F. Supp. 1143 p.1152

707. Followed by, Cited by: Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 165 F.R.D. 431, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4661 (D.N.J. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution}

Followed by: 165 F.R.D. 431 p.436 Cited by: 165 F.R.D. 431 p.437

708. Followed by: Davis v. Glanton, 921 F. Supp. 1421, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4025 (E.D. Pa. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

921 F. Supp. 1421 p.1424

709. Cited by: Campbell v. Smithkline Beecham, 919 F. Supp. 173, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3049 (E.D. Pa. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

919 F. Supp. 173 p.175

710. Cited by: Parent v. Redevelopment Auth., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1370 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25

711. Cited by: Lazorko v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Warning} Page 98 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

712. Cited by: United Health Care Servs. v. Columbia/Hca Healthcare Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15463 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

713. Cited by: Muller v. Maron, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15048 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

714. Cited by: Howard v. Sasson, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14373, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2091 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 , HN25{Positive}

19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2091 p.2092

715. Cited by: Grace Holdings, L.P. v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co., 901 F. Supp. 853, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14667 (D. Del. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15, HN17, HN18 {Cited}

901 F. Supp. 853 p.858

716. Cited by: Bell Atl. Corp. v. MFS Communications Co., 901 F. Supp. 835, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14676, 1995--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P71238 (D. Del. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN16 , HN17{Positive}

901 F. Supp. 835 p.840

717. Cited by: Whelan v. Keystone Health Plan E., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9417, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA)1800 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24 {Positive}

19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1800 p.1802

718. Cited by: Russo v. Abington Mem. Hosp., 881 F. Supp. 177, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4037 (E.D. Pa. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29 {Warning}

881 F. Supp. 177 p.179

719. Cited by: Teamster, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 764 v. Greenawalt, 880 F. Supp. 1076, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3725, 148 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2948 (M.D. Pa. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6{Caution}

880 F. Supp. 1076 p.1080 Page 99 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

720. Cited by: Teamsters Local 641 Pension Fund v. Trucking Employees of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2790 (D.N.J. Mar. 1, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

721. Cited by: Sweigart v. Delmotte, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18735, 148 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2413 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

148 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2413 p.2415

722. Cited by: Brooker v. Becker, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17745 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Warning}

723. Cited by: Paradise Motors v. Murphy, 892 F. Supp. 703, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19780 (D.V.I. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

892 F. Supp. 703 p.708

724. Cited by: Furillo v. Dana Corp. Parish Div., 866 F. Supp. 842, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15072, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2785 (E.D. Pa. 1994){Caution}

866 F. Supp. 842 p.852

725. Cited by: Hunter v. H.L. Yoh Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16298 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

726. Cited by: Pennsylvania v. Comcast Corp., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14608 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

727. Cited by: Schulze v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 277, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14943 (W.D. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

865 F. Supp. 277 p.280 865 F. Supp. 277 p.284

728. Cited by: Lake v. First Nationwide Bank, 156 F.R.D. 615, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10407 (E.D. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

156 F.R.D. 615 p.620 Page 100 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

729. Cited by: Visconti by Visconti v. United States Health Care, 857 F. Supp. 1097, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7772 (E.D. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Warning}

857 F. Supp. 1097 p.1100

730. Followed by: Rauscher v. Ryan, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4331, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430 p.2432

731. Cited by: Jorgensen v. Prudential Ins. Co., 852 F. Supp. 255, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11430 (D.N.J. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

852 F. Supp. 255 p.261 852 F. Supp. 255 p.262

732. Cited by: Berry v. Pennsylvania Pressed Metals, 846 F. Supp. 27, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2784 (M.D. Pa. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

846 F. Supp. 27 p.30

733. Cited by: Pennsylvania Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Quaker Medical Care & Survivors Plan, 836 F. Supp. 314, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16113 (W.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

836 F. Supp. 314 p.318

734. Followed by: Polcha v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 837 F. Supp. 94, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15550, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20926 (M.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN25{Caution}

837 F. Supp. 94 p.96

735. Cited by: Keystone Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors v. Foley, 837 F. Supp. 654, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19699 (M.D. Pa. 1993){Warning}

837 F. Supp. 654 p.657

736. Cited by: Page 101 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Institute of Pa. Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 825 F. Supp. 727, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8726 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18 , HN24{Caution}

825 F. Supp. 727 p.730

737. Cited by: Cannon v. Sheller, 825 F. Supp. 722, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8733 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN18{Positive}

825 F. Supp. 722 p.724

738. Cited by: Jacob v. Smithkline Beecham, 824 F. Supp. 552, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8335 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

824 F. Supp. 552 p.554 824 F. Supp. 552 p.555

739. Cited by: Goehl v. Mellon Bank(DE), 825 F. Supp. 1239, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5123 (E.D. Pa. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN25{Caution}

825 F. Supp. 1239 p.1241

740. Cited by: Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 692 v. First Indem. Ins. Co., 840 F. Supp. 38, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19211 (E.D. Pa. 1993){Cited}

840 F. Supp. 38 p.40

741. Cited by: Sterling Homes, Inc. v. Swope, 816 F. Supp. 319, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3420 (M.D. Pa. 1993){Caution}

816 F. Supp. 319 p.323

742. Cited by: Scalia v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3100 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

743. Cited by: Sun Co. v. United States, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 893 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

744. Cited by: Ament v. PNC Nat'l Bank, 825 F. Supp. 1243, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21855 (W.D. Pa. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Warning}

825 F. Supp. 1243 p.1246 Page 102 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

825 F. Supp. 1243 p.1247

745. Followed by, Cited by: Hunter v. Greenwood Trust Co., 856 F. Supp. 207, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22183 (D.N.J. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN12, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 856 F. Supp. 207 p.217 Cited by: 856 F. Supp. 207 p.211 856 F. Supp. 207 p.212 856 F. Supp. 207 p.214

746. Cited by: Leonardis v. Burns Int'l Sec. Services, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1165, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19357 (D.N.J. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

808 F. Supp. 1165 p.1173

747. Cited by: Riccio v. Prudential Ins. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15434 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

748. Cited by: Yerger v. Landis Mfg. Systems, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14327 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN16, HN17{Analysis}

749. Cited by: Blum v. Seiler Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10377 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Cited}

750. Cited by: McGovern v. Mucklow, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9088 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN12, HN17, HN25{Cited}

751. Cited by: Horsham Clinic, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8284 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Caution}

752. Cited by: United Wire, Metal & Mach. Health & Welfare Fund v. Morristown Memorial Hosp., 793 F. Supp. 524, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7289, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1625 (D.N.J. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Warning}

793 F. Supp. 524 p.531 Page 103 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

753. Cited by: Shawley v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 784 F. Supp. 1200, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2673, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1114 (W.D. Pa. 1992){Caution}

784 F. Supp. 1200 p.1204

754. Cited by: Coardes v. Chrysler Corp., 785 F. Supp. 480, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2888 (D. Del. 1992){Positive}

785 F. Supp. 480 p.483

755. Cited by: Springﬁeld v. Golf View Estates Golf View, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN16, HN24{Analysis}

756. Explained by: Allergy Diagnostics Lab. v. Equitable, 785 F. Supp. 523, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20253 (W.D. Pa. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

785 F. Supp. 523 p.526

757. Cited by: Johnson v. Police Ofﬁcers Does 1--3, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13990 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24

758. Cited by: Oquendo v. Philadelphia, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13556 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

759. Cited by: Eureka Paper Box Co. v. WBMA, Inc., Voluntary Employee Ben. Trust, 767 F. Supp. 642, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8990 (M.D. Pa. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

767 F. Supp. 642 p.649

760. Cited by: AT&T v. Integrated Network Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21695 (D.N.J. June 24, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

761. Cited by: Brown v. Wiener, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21855 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN25{Caution}

1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21855

762. Cited by: Page 104 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

AT&T v. Integrated Network Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21697 (D.N.J. May 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

763. Cited by: Carrington v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 632, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5725, 61 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1821, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2846, 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11052 (D.N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

762 F. Supp. 632 p.636

764. Cited by: Wuerl v. International Life Science Church, 758 F. Supp. 1084, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8500 (W.D. Pa. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Analysis}

758 F. Supp. 1084 p.1086

765. Cited by: Mesa Holding Ltd. Partnership v. Bicoastal Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9272 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24 , HN25

766. Cited by: Patient Care, Inc. v. Freeman, 755 F. Supp. 644, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1061 (D.N.J. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

755 F. Supp. 644 p.646

767. Explained by, Cited by: Vail v. Pan Am Corp., 752 F. Supp. 648, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870 (D.N.J. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

Explained by: 752 F. Supp. 648 p.655 Cited by: 752 F. Supp. 648 p.655

768. Cited by: Meier v. Hamilton Standard Electronic Systems, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 296, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12855, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1617, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2059, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2580, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10482 (E.D. Pa. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

748 F. Supp. 296 p.299

769. Cited by: DePasquale v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 743 F. Supp. 364, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11218, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2293 (E.D. Pa. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Positive} Page 105 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

743 F. Supp. 364 p.366

770. Cited by: Smith v. Industrial Valley Title Ins. Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10213 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

771. Cited by: Milione v. Hahnemann University, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6407, 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 172, 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2814 (E.D. Pa. May 29, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 , HN25{Caution}

8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 172 p.174 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2814 p.2815 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2814 p.2816

772. Cited by: Klein v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 319, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4411 (E.D. Pa. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

737 F. Supp. 319 p.324

773. Cited by: AT&T Mgmt. Pension Plan v. Robichaud, 743 F. Supp. 309, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3431, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2767 (D.N.J. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Caution}

743 F. Supp. 309 p.313

774. Cited by: Giuliano v. CMT Financial Group, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 590 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 1990)

775. Cited by: Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Polidoro, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13484 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17{Caution}

776. Cited by: Shaw v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12732 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

777. Cited by: E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 720 F. Supp. 373, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10567, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1401 (D. Del. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 {Analysis}

720 F. Supp. 373 p.379

778. Cited by: Page 106 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

OraCare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2473, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2391 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

779. Cited by: Glass Molders, etc. v. Wickes Cos., 707 F. Supp. 174, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1937, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P95312, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1718, 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2617, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11877 (D.N.J. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN20, HN24, HN25{Caution}

707 F. Supp. 174 p.177 707 F. Supp. 174 p.179

780. Cited by: Tomlin v. Carson Helicopters, Inc., 700 F. Supp. 248, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12793, 1989 A.M.C. 1216 (E.D. Pa. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

700 F. Supp. 248 p.250

781. Cited by: Tener v. Hoag, 697 F. Supp. 196, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11640, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1550, 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56233, 28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1580 (W.D. Pa. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

697 F. Supp. 196 p.198

782. Cited by: Homecare Leasing Corp. v. Harrisburg Medical Management, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3399 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10 , HN17{Cited}

783. Cited by: Bacardi v. Bacardi Corp., 677 F. Supp. 253, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 296, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93712 (D. Del. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Caution}

677 F. Supp. 253 p.255

784. Cited by: Lovelace v. Acme Markets, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 576 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 1988){Analysis}

785. Cited by: Kostrzewski v. U.S. Steel Supply, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10341 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN29{Analysis}

786. Cited by: Page 107 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cole v. Pathmark of Fairlawn, 672 F. Supp. 796, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10134, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 202, 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3037 (D.N.J. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

672 F. Supp. 796 p.800

787. Cited by: Zemp v. Boeing Vertol Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6840 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

788. Cited by: Kindness v. Spang, 716 F. Supp. 1535, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14934, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2431, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12063 (M.D. Pa. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Caution}

716 F. Supp. 1535 p.1537

789. Cited by: Kahn v. Mohawk, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3314 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17

790. Cited by: Lehmann v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3392 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

791. Cited by: Kuzmick v. International Paper Co., Liquid Package Div., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1233 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

792. Followed by, Cited by: Cahall v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 644 F. Supp. 806, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20043 (E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25 , HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 644 F. Supp. 806 p.809 644 F. Supp. 806 p.810 644 F. Supp. 806 p.811 Cited by: 644 F. Supp. 806 p.809 644 F. Supp. 806 p.810

793. Cited by: SHORLEY v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22455 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

794. Cited by: Page 108 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

REISS v. BROTHERHOOD OF RY. & AIRLINE CLERKS, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28417 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

795. Followed by: Reiss v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Airline Clerks, 629 F. Supp. 1029, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28679, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10277 (E.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

629 F. Supp. 1029 p.1030

796. Followed by: Recchion on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kirby, 637 F. Supp. 290, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30774 (W.D. Pa. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Caution}

637 F. Supp. 290 p.292

797. Cited by: Elf Aquitaine, Inc. v. Placid Oil Co., 624 F. Supp. 994, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12273 (D. Del. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN29{Cited}

624 F. Supp. 994 p.997 624 F. Supp. 994 p.998 624 F. Supp. 994 p.999

798. Cited by: Kilmer v. Central Counties Bank, 623 F. Supp. 994, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13043, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2685 (W.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

623 F. Supp. 994 p.997 623 F. Supp. 994 p.998 623 F. Supp. 994 p.1000

799. Cited by: United Mine Workers International Union v. G.M. & W. Coal Co., 642 F. Supp. 57, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14008 (W.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Positive}

642 F. Supp. 57 p.59

800. Cited by: Airco Industrial Gases v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 618 F. Supp. 943, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16071, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2409, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10514 (D. Del. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

618 F. Supp. 943 p.947

801. Cited by: Page 109 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Essington Metal Works, Inc. v. Retirement Plans of America, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 1546, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19203 (E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

609 F. Supp. 1546 p.1550

802. Followed by, Cited by: Shifﬂer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 609 F. Supp. 832, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379 (E.D. Pa. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Warning}

Followed by: 609 F. Supp. 832 p.834 Cited by: 609 F. Supp. 832 p.835

803. Cited by: McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1492, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23243, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1113 (D.N.J. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

602 F. Supp. 1492 p.1499

804. Cited by: Evanston Ins. Co. v. Merin, 598 F. Supp. 1290, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21902 (D.N.J. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

598 F. Supp. 1290 p.1301

805. Cited by: Scales v. National R. Passenger Corp., 634 F. Supp. 1, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17372, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2209 (E.D. Pa. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Cited}

634 F. Supp. 1 p.2

806. Cited by: Eierman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 637 F. Supp. 225, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20799 (E.D. Pa. 1984){Cited}

637 F. Supp. 225 p.225

807. Explained by, Cited by: Northwest Cent. Pipeline Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 576 F. Supp. 1495, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10290 (D. Del. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

Explained by: 576 F. Supp. 1495 p.1499 Cited by: 576 F. Supp. 1495 p.1501 576 F. Supp. 1495 p.1502

808. Cited by: Page 110 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cameron Manor, Inc. v. United Mine Workers, 575 F. Supp. 1243, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10368 (W.D. Pa. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Positive}

575 F. Supp. 1243 p.1245 3RD CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

809. Followed by: In re Futura Industries, Inc., 69 B.R. 831, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 140, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1459 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

69 B.R. 831 p.836 4TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

810. Cited by: Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13138, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2715, 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60017 (4th Cir. W. Va. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

413 F.3d 435 p.441

811. Cited by: Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4327 (4th Cir. Md. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Positive}

402 F.3d 430 p.442 402 F.3d 430 p.443

812. Followed by: Discover Bank v. Vaden, 396 F.3d 366, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 1158 (4th Cir. Md. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

396 F.3d 366 p.371 396 F.3d 366 p.372

813. Cited by: Freeman v. Duke Power Co., 114 Fed. Appx. 526, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20452, 176 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2576 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

114 Fed. Appx. 526 p.530

814. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Verizon Md., Inc. v. Global Naps, 377 F.3d 355, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15849 (4th Cir. Md. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 377 F.3d 355 p.389 Cited by: 377 F.3d 355 p.362 Page 111 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

815. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Bryan v. BellSouth Communs., 377 F.3d 424, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15538 (4th Cir. N.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 377 F.3d 424 p.432 Cited by: 377 F.3d 424 p.429

816. Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10233, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41659, 149 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59859 (4th Cir. S.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 369 F.3d 811 p.821 Cited by: 369 F.3d 811 p.816

817. Cited by: Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13783 (4th Cir. S.C. May 25, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13783

818. Cited by: Studio Frames v. Std. Fire Ins. Co., 369 F.3d 376, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10070 (4th Cir. N.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Caution}

369 F.3d 376 p.380

819. Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 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 HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

Explained by: 364 F.3d 521 p.526 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 364 F.3d 521 p.532

820. Cited by: Treacy v. Newdunn Assocs., LLP, 344 F.3d 407, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18681, 57 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1001, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. 20268 (4th Cir. Va. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

344 F.3d 407 p.411

821. Cited by: Page 112 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

King v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 337 F.3d 421, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14934, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2619 (4th Cir. Md. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 {Caution}

337 F.3d 421 p.424

822. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 330 F.3d 250, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10767, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1813, 148 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59750 (4th Cir. S.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Warning}

Followed by: 330 F.3d 250 p.259 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 330 F.3d 250 p.271 Cited by: 330 F.3d 250 p.257

823. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20225, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41514 (4th Cir. S.C. May 30, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Warning}

Followed by: 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20225 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20225

824. Followed by: Webster County Lumber Co. v. Wayne, 61 Fed. Appx. 63, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5573 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

61 Fed. Appx. 63 p.65

825. Cited by: Foy v. Giant Food, Inc., 298 F.3d 284, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14918, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1537, 170 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10081 (4th Cir. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

298 F.3d 284 p.287

826. Cited by: Battle v. Seibels Bruce Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 596, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7863 (4th Cir. N.C. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN22, HN25{Caution}

288 F.3d 596 p.607

827. Cited by: N. Jefferson Square Assocs., L.P. v. Va. Hous. Dev. Auth., 32 Fed. Appx. 684, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6205 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17 {Analysis} Page 113 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

32 Fed. Appx. 684 p.687

828. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan, 249 F.3d 215, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7937 (4th Cir. W. Va. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

Followed by: 249 F.3d 215 p.219 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 249 F.3d 215 p.226 Cited by: 249 F.3d 215 p.220

829. Cited by: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 201 (4th Cir. W. Va. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

237 F.3d 366 p.370

830. Followed by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan, 228 F.3d 331, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22677 (4th Cir. W. Va. 2000){Warning}

Followed by: 228 F.3d 331 p.335 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 228 F.3d 331 p.338 Cited by: 228 F.3d 331 p.333

831. Cited by: Spicer v. Local Union 1900, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19054 (4th Cir. Md. Aug. 9, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 19054

832. Cited by: Shiﬂett v. I.T.O. Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 263 (4th Cir. Md. Jan. 10, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 263

833. Cited by: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 191 F.3d 552, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21491 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

191 F.3d 552 p.557 191 F.3d 552 p.558 Page 114 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

834. Cited by: Leary v. Bluestone Coal Corp., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6784 (4th Cir. W. Va. Apr. 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11{Analysis}

1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6784

835. Cited by: Warren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31793, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2089 (4th Cir. S.C. Nov. 12, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24 {Analysis}

21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2089 p.2090

836. Cited by: Davis v. Bell Atlantic--West Va., 110 F.3d 245, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6238, 154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2943, 133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11792 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

110 F.3d 245 p.247

837. Cited by: International Science & Tech. Inst. v. Inacom Communs., 106 F.3d 1146, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2232, 6 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 856, 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1498 (4th Cir. Va. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

106 F.3d 1146 p.1154

838. Cited by: Gibraltar, P.R., Inc. v. Otoki Group, 104 F.3d 616, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 477, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1478 (4th Cir. Md. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15, HN17 {Caution}

104 F.3d 616 p.619

839. Cited by: Coyne & Delany Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 102 F.3d 712, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 32913, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2225 (4th Cir. Va. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Positive}

102 F.3d 712 p.714

840. Cited by: Ormet Corp. v. Ohio Power Co., 98 F.3d 799, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27476, 43 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1545, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20302 (4th Cir. W. Va. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

98 F.3d 799 p.806

841. Cited by: Page 115 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Custer v. Sweeney, 89 F.3d 1156, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17852, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1569 (4th Cir. Va. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

89 F.3d 1156 p.1165 89 F.3d 1156 p.1168

842. Cited by: Yarde v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25883 (4th Cir. S.C. Sept. 12, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

843. Cited by: Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16962, 39 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1721 (4th Cir. S.C. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

29 F.3d 148 p.151

844. Cited by: Enweremadu v. Reichlin, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20920 (4th Cir. Va. Aug. 18, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

845. Cited by: Rosciszewski v. Arete Assocs., 1 F.3d 225, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19511, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27127, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1678 (4th Cir. Va. 1993){Caution}

1 F.3d 225 p.228 1 F.3d 225 p.231

846. Cited by: Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 22377, 139 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3000 (4th Cir. Va. Sept. 25, 1991){Analysis}

847. Cited by: Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 944 F.2d 196, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21197, 15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1273 (4th Cir. N.C. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 {Positive}

944 F.2d 196 p.198

848. Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: McCormick v. AT&T Technologies, 934 F.2d 531, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11237, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 915, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2453, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10752, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10852 (4th Cir. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 934 F.2d 531 p.540 Cited by: 934 F.2d 531 p.534 Page 116 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

849. Followed by: Provident Life & Acci. Ins. Co. v. Waller, 906 F.2d 985, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10813, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1880 (4th Cir. Va. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

906 F.2d 985 p.987 906 F.2d 985 p.990

850. Cited by: Ridenour v. Andrews Federal Credit Union, 897 F.2d 715, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2954, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39705 (4th Cir. Md. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

897 F.2d 715 p.717

851. Cited by: Arthur Young & Co. v. Richmond, 895 F.2d 967, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1850, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26529, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 768, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1881 (4th Cir. Va. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 {Caution}

895 F.2d 967 p.969

852. Cited by: Childers v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 881 F.2d 1259, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10980, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1069, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3217, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11370 (4th Cir. Md. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN22, HN25{Caution}

881 F.2d 1259 p.1261

853. Cited by: Rayner v. Smirl, 873 F.2d 60, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5364, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 426 (4th Cir. Md. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution}

873 F.2d 60 p.63

854. Cited by: Meade v. Meade, 812 F.2d 1473, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3324 (4th Cir. N.C. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN25{Questioned}

812 F.2d 1473 p.1481

855. Cited by: Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp., 811 F.2d 253, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1946, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1267, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1580, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2745, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12203 (4th Cir. Md. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Questioned}

811 F.2d 253 p.255 Page 117 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

856. Harmonized by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: Garvin v. Alumax of South Carolina, Inc., 787 F.2d 910, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29852, 1987 A.M.C. 402 (4th Cir. S.C. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN25{Questioned}

Harmonized by: 787 F.2d 910 p.914 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 787 F.2d 910 p.920

857. Cited by: Cook v. Georgetown Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 1272, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 22677, 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2339, 103 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11678, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 530 (4th Cir. S.C. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN25{Caution}

770 F.2d 1272 p.1274 770 F.2d 1272 p.1275 4TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

858. Cited by: Blackburn Pre--OwnedAutos, LLC v. Blackburn, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48143 (S.D. W. Va. July 5, 2006)

859. Cited by: Mid--AtlanticSoaring Ass'n v. FAA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49347 (D. Md. June 29, 2006)

860. Cited by: Airborne Tactical Advantage Co. v. Peninsula Airport Comm'n, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24271 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24271

861. Cited by: Adkins v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14679 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 13, 2006)

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14679

862. Followed by: San Jose Constr. Group, Inc. v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 415 F. Supp. 2d 643, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5804 (E.D. Va. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN25{Cited}

415 F. Supp. 2d 643 p.645

863. Cited by: Devone v. Devone, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9031 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9031 Page 118 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

864. Cited by: Latteri v. Latteri, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38349 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38349

865. Cited by: Abreo v. N.C. Growers' Ass'n, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30535 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30535

866. Followed by: Charleston Div. City Nat'l Bank of W. Va. v. Mountaineer Capital, LP, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31330 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 18, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31330

867. Cited by: Latteri v. Latteri, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40295 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40295

868. Followed by: Cole v. Long John Silver's Rests., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 644, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29227 (D.S.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Analysis}

388 F. Supp. 2d 644 p.650

869. Cited by: Nordan v. Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 382 F. Supp. 2d 801, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24131 (E.D.N.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN20, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

382 F. Supp. 2d 801 p.806

870. Cited by: M.Q. v. Balt. County Pub. Schs, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16690 (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16690

871. Cited by: Mullaly v. Ins. Servs. Ofﬁce, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 290, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25556 (M.D.N.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

395 F. Supp. 2d 290 p.294 Page 119 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

872. Cited by: Georgetown Condos. Homeowners' Ass'n v. Cmty. Apts. Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 512, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26277 (M.D.N.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

387 F. Supp. 2d 512 p.514

873. Cited by: Stafford v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11200 (M.D.N.C. June 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11200

874. Cited by: Hagan v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 700, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6544, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2014 (E.D. Va. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

365 F. Supp. 2d 700 p.706

875. Cited by: Mangum v. Child Abuse Prevention Ass'n, 358 F. Supp. 2d 492, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4662 (D.S.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

358 F. Supp. 2d 492 p.494

876. Cited by: Stafford v. Discover Bank, 350 F. Supp. 2d 695, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26295 (M.D.N.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

350 F. Supp. 2d 695 p.698

877. Cited by: Birdsong Tractor & Supply, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig.) , 332 F. Supp. 2d 890, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17017, 2004--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74525 (D. Md. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

332 F. Supp. 2d 890 p.893

878. Cited by: Murray v. Motorola, Inc. (In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig.) , 327 F. Supp. 2d 554, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13954, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17071 (D. Md. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

327 F. Supp. 2d 554 p.561

879. Cited by: Cross Country Bank v. McGraw, 321 F. Supp. 2d 816, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11010 (S.D. W. Va. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

321 F. Supp. 2d 816 p.819 Page 120 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

880. Cited by: Besse v. GMC, 317 F. Supp. 2d 646, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13647 (D.S.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Cited}

317 F. Supp. 2d 646 p.652

881. Cited by: Martin v. Lagualt, 315 F. Supp. 2d 811, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7428 (E.D. Va. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Positive}

315 F. Supp. 2d 811 p.814

882. Cited by: Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Energy Dev. Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 833, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5932 (S.D. W. Va. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN25{Cited}

312 F. Supp. 2d 833 p.836

883. Cited by: PeopleTree Stafﬁng Solutions, Inc. v. People, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4481 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4481

884. Followed by, Cited by: Virden v. Altria Group, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 832, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1541 (N.D. W. Va. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

Followed by: 304 F. Supp. 2d 832 p.838 Cited by: 304 F. Supp. 2d 832 p.837

885. Cited by: Azam v. Martin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20874 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20874

886. Cited by: McPhatter v. Sweitzer, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15878 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2003) {Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15878

887. Cited by: Winter v. Bassett, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14661 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14661 Page 121 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

888. Cited by: Freeman v. Duke Power Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14432, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2468 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14432

889. Cited by: Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Felizardo, 278 F. Supp. 2d 590, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14494 (D. Md. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

278 F. Supp. 2d 590 p.592

890. Cited by: In re Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12161 (M.D.N.C. July 14, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12161

891. Cited by: Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 2d 364, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10274 (D.S.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

264 F. Supp. 2d 364 p.366

892. Cited by: Neal v. GMC, 266 F. Supp. 2d 449, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9944, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2158 (W.D.N.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

266 F. Supp. 2d 449 p.453

893. Cited by: Harless v. CSX Hotels, Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 640, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9324, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2211 (S.D. W. Va. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Positive}

265 F. Supp. 2d 640 p.645

894. Cited by: Healthtek Solutions, Inc. v. Fortis Bens. Ins. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 767, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13238 (E.D. Va. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Positive}

274 F. Supp. 2d 767 p.775

895. Followed by: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26962 (D.S.C. May 12, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26962

896. Cited by: Page 122 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Tingler v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5455 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 2, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN16

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5455

897. Cited by: Verizon Md., Inc. v. RCN Telecom Servs., 248 F. Supp. 2d 468, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3579 (D. Md. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25 {Warning}

248 F. Supp. 2d 468 p.476 248 F. Supp. 2d 468 p.481

898. Cited by: Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, 247 F. Supp. 2d 813, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2774, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1743 (D.S.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

247 F. Supp. 2d 813 p.817 247 F. Supp. 2d 813 p.819

899. Cited by: West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Microsoft Corp. (In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig.) , 274 F. Supp. 2d 736, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26588, 2003--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74190 (D. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Warning}

274 F. Supp. 2d 736 p.737

900. Cited by: Fullen v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 266 F. Supp. 2d 471, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26405 (N.D. W. Va. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

266 F. Supp. 2d 471 p.475

901. Cited by: Broxton v. McHugh, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25245 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN18

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25245

902. Followed by: R.F. Shinn Contrs., Inc. v. Rick D. Shinn & Shinn Sys., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25253 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25253

903. Cited by: Biggerstaff v. Voice Power Telcoms., Inc., 221 F. Supp. 2d 652, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17981 (D.S.C. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution} Page 123 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

221 F. Supp. 2d 652 p.655

904. Cited by: Mullins v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No.77, 214 F. Supp. 2d 655, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14643, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2169 (E.D. Va. 2002) {Caution}

214 F. Supp. 2d 655 p.668

905. Followed by: Arnold v. CSX Hotels, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 634, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14167, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2219 (S.D. W. Va. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

212 F. Supp. 2d 634 p.637

906. Cited by: Greer v. Crown Title Corp., 216 F. Supp. 2d 519, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16137 (D. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

216 F. Supp. 2d 519 p.521

907. Cited by: Pinney v. Nokia (In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig.) , 216 F. Supp. 2d 474, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11144 (D. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

216 F. Supp. 2d 474 p.480

908. Cited by: Wiseman v. First--CitizensBank & Trust Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10448, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1958 (W.D.N.C. June 4, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10448

909. Cited by: Grover v. Comdial Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9620, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1843 (W.D. Va. May 23, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 {Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9620

910. Cited by: Southpointe Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottis Ins. Agency Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 586, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18075 (D.S.C. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17 {Cited}

213 F. Supp. 2d 586 p.590

911. Cited by: Page 124 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Houck v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 194 F. Supp. 2d 452, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8145 (D.S.C. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

194 F. Supp. 2d 452 p.456

912. Cited by: Lewis v. Arthur B. Hodges Ctr., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 724, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22007 (S.D. W. Va. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

230 F. Supp. 2d 724 p.726

913. Cited by: St. Mary's Hosp. v. Careﬁrst of Md., Inc., 192 F. Supp. 2d 384, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6103, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2724 (D. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution}

192 F. Supp. 2d 384 p.387

914. Cited by: Marks v. W. Va. Dep't of HHS, 181 F. Supp. 2d 639, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1192, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1593 (S.D. W. Va. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN12, HN16{Caution}

181 F. Supp. 2d 639 p.642

915. Cited by: Stephenson v. Bartlett, 180 F. Supp. 2d 779, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23697 (E.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17{Positive}

180 F. Supp. 2d 779 p.783

916. Cited by: Thorp v. Centura Bank, 200 F. Supp. 2d 559, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23802 (E.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

200 F. Supp. 2d 559 p.560

917. Cited by: Hilliard v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Mid--AtlanticStates, 169 F. Supp. 2d 416, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17844 (D. Md. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Cited}

169 F. Supp. 2d 416 p.419

918. Cited by: McCallister v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 164 F. Supp. 2d 783, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15283 (S.D. W. Va. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN29{Positive}

164 F. Supp. 2d 783 p.788 164 F. Supp. 2d 783 p.789 Page 125 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

164 F. Supp. 2d 783 p.790 164 F. Supp. 2d 783 p.793

919. Cited by: Gold Leaf Land Trust v. Bd. of Supervisors, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24001 (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25{Warning}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24001

920. Cited by: Broadbent v. Allison, 155 F. Supp. 2d 520, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12769 (W.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24{Cited}

155 F. Supp. 2d 520 p.522

921. Cited by: Grover v. Comdial Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23994 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23994

922. Cited by: Fair v. Sprint Payphone Servs., 148 F. Supp. 2d 622, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8364, 2001--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73352 (D.S.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

148 F. Supp. 2d 622 p.625

923. Cited by: Durgin v. Giant Food, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5783 (D. Md. May 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5783

924. Cited by: Thomson v. Verizon Md., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 546, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5811, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2501, 143 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11060 (D. Md. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

140 F. Supp. 2d 546 p.552

925. Cited by: Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge, 133 F. Supp. 2d 814, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20989 (E.D. Va. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

133 F. Supp. 2d 814 p.817

926. Cited by: Link Telecomms., Inc. v. Sapperstein, 119 F. Supp. 2d 536, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18582 (D. Md. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive} Page 126 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

119 F. Supp. 2d 536 p.539

927. Cited by: Williams v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 115 F. Supp. 2d 561, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14659, 154 Oil & Gas Rep. 367 (D. Md. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Positive}

115 F. Supp. 2d 561 p.564

928. Cited by: Maggio--Onorato & Assocs. v. AEGON N.V., 104 F. Supp. 2d 518, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10989, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1562 (D. Md. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

104 F. Supp. 2d 518 p.522

929. Cited by: North Jefferson Square Assocs., L.P. v. Virginia Hous. Dev. Auth., 94 F. Supp. 2d 709, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8876 (E.D. Va. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8876

930. Cited by: North Jefferson Square Assocs., L.P. v. Virginia Hous. Dev. Auth., 94 F. Supp. 2d 709 (E.D. Va. 2000){Analysis}

94 F. Supp. 2d 709 p.714

931. Cited by: Anderson v. National Treasury Emples. Union, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8765 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8765

932. Cited by: Miller v. Carelink Health Plans, Inc., 82 F. Supp. 2d 574, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 731, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2137, 176 A.L.R. Fed. 751 (S.D. W. Va. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

82 F. Supp. 2d 574 p.577

933. Cited by: McCutcheon v. Valley Rich Dairy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 657, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 732 (S.D. W. Va. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

81 F. Supp. 2d 657 p.659

934. Cited by: Pendergraph v. Crown Honda--Volvo LLC, 104 F. Supp. 2d 586, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22005 (M.D.N.C. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis} Page 127 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

104 F. Supp. 2d 586 p.588

935. Cited by: Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.Com, 51 F. Supp. 2d 707, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8750, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1461 (E.D. Va. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN25{Warning}

51 F. Supp. 2d 707 p.711

936. Cited by: Wilhelm v. Smithﬁeld Packing, Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9733 (E.D.N.C. May 3, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9733

937. Cited by: Findlay v. PHE, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9761 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN11, HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9761

938. Cited by: Metheney v. Monarch Rubber Co., 43 F. Supp. 2d 588, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5362, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2377, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2378 (S.D. W. Va. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18, HN24{Cited}

43 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.590

939. Cited by: Dantzler v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6726 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6726

940. Cited by: McGraw v. Thomas, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6664 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6664

941. Cited by: Kight v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 34 F. Supp. 2d 334, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 712 (E.D. Va. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN25{Caution}

34 F. Supp. 2d 334 p.337

942. Cited by: Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. Miano, 66 F. Supp. 2d 805, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22628 (S.D. W. Va. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

66 F. Supp. 2d 805 p.809 Page 128 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

943. Cited by: Carraway v. Mayﬂower Transit, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d 262, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21083 (E.D.N.C. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN24{Caution}

36 F. Supp. 2d 262 p.263

944. Followed by: Circuit City Stores v. EEOC, 12 F. Supp. 2d 519, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11261, 77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1101 (E.D. Va. 1998){Warning}

12 F. Supp. 2d 519 p.524

945. Followed by: Person v. Physicians Health Plan, 20 F. Supp. 2d 918, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14551 (E.D. Va. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

20 F. Supp. 2d 918 p.921

946. Cited by: Huskey v. Cox Communs. Hampton Rds., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11367, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2397 (E.D. Va. June 12, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11367 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2397 p.2399

947. Cited by: Donald v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 7 F. Supp. 2d 694, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8721, 77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1831 (E.D.N.C. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN24{Positive}

7 F. Supp. 2d 694 p.695

948. Cited by: MCI Telcoms. Corp. v. Frisby, 998 F. Supp. 625, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12138 (D. Md. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

998 F. Supp. 625 p.628

949. Cited by: West Virginia--OhioValley Area I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund v. American Tobacco Co., 29 F. Supp. 2d 733, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15017 (S.D. W. Va. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Analysis}

29 F. Supp. 2d 733 p.735

950. Cited by: Danfelt v. Board of County Comm'rs, 998 F. Supp. 606, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3495, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 72, 5 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 156 (D. Md. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution} Page 129 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

998 F. Supp. 606 p.608 998 F. Supp. 606 p.610

951. Cited by: Person v. Bell Atlantic--Virginia, 993 F. Supp. 958, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2341, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2238 (E.D. Va. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Caution}

993 F. Supp. 958 p.960

952. Cited by: Semtek Int'l v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 988 F. Supp. 913, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20937 (D. Md. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11{Warning}

988 F. Supp. 913 p.914

953. Cited by: Green v. H & R Block, 981 F. Supp. 951, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18913 (D. Md. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

981 F. Supp. 951 p.953

954. Cited by: Peele v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 979 F. Supp. 1069, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17152 (E.D. Va. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

955. Cited by: Therrell v. Cameron, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20294 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

956. Cited by: Johannssen v. Dist. No. 1 --Paciﬁc Coast Dist., MEBA Pension Plan, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14351 (D. Md. Aug. 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Caution}

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14351

957. Cited by: Stonewall Jackson Mem. Hosp. v. American United Life Ins. Co., 963 F. Supp. 553, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6233 (N.D. W. Va. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9 , HN10, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

963 F. Supp. 553 p.559

958. Cited by: Lancaster by Lancaster v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 958 F. Supp. 1137, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4602, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2107 (E.D. Va. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution} Page 130 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

958 F. Supp. 1137 p.1142 958 F. Supp. 1137 p.1143

959. Cited by: Dykema v. King, 959 F. Supp. 736, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4523 (D.S.C. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

959 F. Supp. 736 p.739

960. Cited by: Jenkins v. Bishop, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20001 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

961. Cited by: Romano v. British Airways, plc, 943 F. Supp. 623, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16501 (N.D. W. Va. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Cited}

943 F. Supp. 623 p.624

962. Cited by: Maryland v. Phillip Morris Inc., 934 F. Supp. 173, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11440 (D. Md. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Cited}

934 F. Supp. 173 p.175

963. Cited by: Virginia Transfer & Storage Co. v. Mayﬂower Transit, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15445 (E.D. Va. July 29, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24

964. Cited by: J.H.W. Sr., Inc. v. Exxon Co., 921 F. Supp. 1436, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7690 (D. Md. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Cited}

921 F. Supp. 1436 p.1438

965. Cited by: Mills v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17261 (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10

966. Cited by: Morales v. Showell Farms, 910 F. Supp. 244, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19282, 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 85 (M.D.N.C. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

910 F. Supp. 244 p.247

967. Cited by: Morales v. Showell Farms Inc., 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 85 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 1995) Page 131 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 85 p.87

968. Cited by: Wagner v. Regent Invs., 903 F. Supp. 966, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17124, 5 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 88, 14 Am. Disabilities Dec. 449 (E.D. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

903 F. Supp. 966 p.968

969. Cited by: Edmonds v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 883 F. Supp. 89, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4988 (S.D. W. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

883 F. Supp. 89 p.92

970. Cited by: O'Neal v. CIGNA Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 878 F. Supp. 848, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3504 (D.S.C. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17 {Caution}

878 F. Supp. 848 p.850

971. Cited by: Grover v. Central Beneﬁts Nat'l Life Ins. Co, 876 F. Supp. 826, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2141 (S.D. W. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Cited}

876 F. Supp. 826 p.829

972. Followed by: Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon, 869 F. Supp. 398, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17699 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN23, HN28, HN29{Positive}

869 F. Supp. 398 p.403

973. Cited by: Broadnax Mills, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 867 F. Supp. 398, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16090 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN25{Analysis}

867 F. Supp. 398 p.400 867 F. Supp. 398 p.401

974. Cited by: Handyman Network v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 868 F. Supp. 151, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19600 (D.S.C. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN18, HN25{Cited}

868 F. Supp. 151 p.153 Page 132 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

975. Cited by: Scott v. Greiner, 858 F. Supp. 607, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10082 (S.D. W. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Caution}

858 F. Supp. 607 p.609

976. Followed by: Ocean Breeze Festival Park v. Reich, 853 F. Supp. 906, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7264, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1621 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

853 F. Supp. 906 p.912

977. Cited by: Crawford v. Mokhtari, 842 F. Supp. 840, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4063 (D. Md. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Positive}

842 F. Supp. 840 p.843

978. Followed by, Cited by: Bailey v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 842 F. Supp. 218, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4550, 64 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 987, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2365 (S.D. W. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

Followed by: 842 F. Supp. 218 p.220 842 F. Supp. 218 p.221 Cited by: 842 F. Supp. 218 p.222 842 F. Supp. 218 p.224

979. Cited by: Dixon v. Nisley, 840 F. Supp. 49, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119 (E.D. Va. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

840 F. Supp. 49 p.50

980. Cited by: Yarde v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 840 F. Supp. 406, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207 (D.S.C. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

840 F. Supp. 406 p.411

981. Followed by, Cited by: Esser v. Roach, 829 F. Supp. 171, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864 (E.D. Va. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN15, HN16, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25{Positive}

Followed by: 829 F. Supp. 171 p.175 Page 133 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cited by: 829 F. Supp. 171 p.174

982. Cited by: Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14669 (D.S.C. July 21, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Analysis}

983. Cited by: Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2978 (D.S.C. July 21, 1993)

143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2978 p.2979

984. Cited by: McGraw v. FD Servs., Inc., 811 F. Supp. 222, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2550 (D.S.C. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Cited}

811 F. Supp. 222 p.223

985. Cited by: Sanford v. Moving Picture Mach. Operators' Protective Union, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22568, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10354 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

986. Cited by: Sanford v. Moving Picture Mach. Operators' Protective Union, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22200, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2509 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN18{Positive}

145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2509 p.2511

987. Cited by: Sanford v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Mach. Operators, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10354 (E.D. Va. July 28, 1992){Analysis}

123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10354

988. Followed by, Cited by: Richmond v. American Systems Corp., 792 F. Supp. 449, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6663, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1423 (E.D. Va. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

Followed by: 792 F. Supp. 449 p.453 Cited by: 792 F. Supp. 449 p.454 792 F. Supp. 449 p.455 Page 134 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

989. Followed by: Dorey Electric Co. v. Pittman Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 734, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5801, 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P35678 (E.D. Va. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

789 F. Supp. 734 p.737

990. Cited by: Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21419 (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

991. Cited by: Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 782 F. Supp. 302, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1794 (E.D. Va. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

782 F. Supp. 302 p.305

992. Followed by: Commonwealth Film Processing, Inc. v. Moss & Rocovich, P.C., 778 F. Supp. 283, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16768 (W.D. Va. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN11, HN17{Caution}

778 F. Supp. 283 p.285 778 F. Supp. 283 p.286

993. Cited by: Jones v. Wake County Hosp. System, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 538, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19263 (E.D.N.C. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

786 F. Supp. 538 p.542

994. Followed by: Hartman v. Bethany College, 778 F. Supp. 286, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20228 (N.D. W. Va. 1991){Cited}

778 F. Supp. 286 p.286

995. Cited by: Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 752 F. Supp. 698, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18552, 139 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2990, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10684 (E.D. Va. 1990){Positive}

752 F. Supp. 698 p.703

996. Followed by, Cited by: Chesapeake v. Sutton Enterprises, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 468, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19459 (E.D. Va. 1990){Caution}

Followed by: 138 F.R.D. 468 p.471 138 F.R.D. 468 p.476 Page 135 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cited by: 138 F.R.D. 468 p.471 138 F.R.D. 468 p.472

997. Cited by: Chesapeake v. Sutton Enterprises, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 468, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19460 (E.D. Va. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

998. Cited by: Cheshire v. Coca--ColaBottling Afﬁliated, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1098, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12565, 1990--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69168 (D.S.C. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17{Cited}

758 F. Supp. 1098 p.1100

999. Cited by: Pulse One Communications, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19790 (D. Md. July 6, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

1000 Cited by: . Barton v. Creasey Co. of Clarksburg, 718 F. Supp. 1284, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10258, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3101, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10527, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1529 (N.D. W. Va. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17, HN24{Caution}

718 F. Supp. 1284 p.1287

1001 Cited by: . Vilas v. Lyons, 702 F. Supp. 555, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14418, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1771 (D. Md. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

702 F. Supp. 555 p.562

1002 Cited by: . Jones v. American Tobacco Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16828 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

1003 Cited by: . Sclafani v. Insurance Co. of North America, 671 F. Supp. 364, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9569 (D. Md. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Positive}

671 F. Supp. 364 p.365

1004 Cited by: . Page 136 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Amelia County School Bd. v. Virginia Bd. of Education, 661 F. Supp. 889, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4719 (E.D. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

661 F. Supp. 889 p.892

1005 Cited by: . Sharp v. AT & T Communications, 660 F. Supp. 650, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4139, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10708 (N.D. W. Va. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24 {Cited}

660 F. Supp. 650 p.651 660 F. Supp. 650 p.652

1006 Cited by: . Brooks v. A.S. Abell Pub. Co., 635 F. Supp. 118, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26803 (D. Md. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10{Cited}

635 F. Supp. 118 p.119

1007 Followed by: . Mallory v. Ingersoll--RandCo., 621 F. Supp. 1040, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14011, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2905 (W.D. Va. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

621 F. Supp. 1040 p.1043

1008 Cited by: . Zieg v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 612, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23840 (E.D. Va. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN20, HN24, HN25{Positive}

592 F. Supp. 612 p.613 592 F. Supp. 612 p.614 4TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

1009 Cited by: . Allnutt v. Associates Leasing (In re Allnutt), 220 B.R. 871, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 391, 10 4th Cir. & D.C. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 267 (Bankr. D. Md. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN24{Warning}

220 B.R. 871 p.887

1010 Cited by: . Page 137 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Poplar Run Five Ltd. Ptnr. v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co. (In re Poplar Run Five Ltd. Ptnr.) , 192 B.R. 848, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1425, 8 4th Cir. & D.C. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 284, 27 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1194, 34 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 725 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

192 B.R. 848 p.855 5TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

1011 Cited by: . Mello v. Sara Lee Corp., 431 F.3d 440, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 25218, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1458 (5th Cir. Miss. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Positive}

431 F.3d 440 p.444

1012 Followed by: . PCI Transp. Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15251 (5th Cir. Tex. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

418 F.3d 535 p.543

1013 Cited by: . Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18759, 199 A.L.R. Fed. 743 (5th Cir. Tex. 2003){Caution}

343 F.3d 769 p.772

1014 Cited by: . Sherwin--Williams Co. v. Holmes County, 343 F.3d 383, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16613, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16714 (5th Cir. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18{Positive}

343 F.3d 383 p.395

1015 Cited by: . Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 342 F.3d 400, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16181 (5th Cir. Miss. 2003){Questioned}

342 F.3d 400 p.408

1016 Cited by: . Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan, 338 F.3d 433, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13918, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2353 (5th Cir. La. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution} Page 138 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

338 F.3d 433 p.440

1017 Cited by: . Roark v. Humana, Inc., 307 F.3d 298, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19139, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2612 (5th Cir. Tex. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

307 F.3d 298 p.304

1018 Cited by: . Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan, Inc., 302 F.3d 462, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16468, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2089 (5th Cir. La. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

302 F.3d 462 p.473

1019 Followed by, Cited by: . MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 12203, 55 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1699, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20757 (5th Cir. La. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Analysis}

Followed by: 295 F.3d 485 p.492 Cited by: 295 F.3d 485 p.490

1020 Followed by: . Bauhaus USA, Inc. v. Copeland, 292 F.3d 439, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9559, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2633 (5th Cir. Miss. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

292 F.3d 439 p.442

1021 Cited by: . Comstock Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Ala. & Coushatta Indian Tribes, 261 F.3d 567, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19162, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20029, 154 Oil & Gas Rep. 93 (5th Cir. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

261 F.3d 567 p.573

1022 Followed by: . Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2890 (5th Cir. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

243 F.3d 912 p.917 Page 139 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1023 Cited by: . Waste Control Specialists, LLC v. Envirocare of Texas, Inc., 199 F.3d 781, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 603, 2000-- 1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72768, 2000--01Trade Cas. (CCH) P72768 (5th Cir. Tex. 2000){Questioned}

199 F.3d 781 p.784

1024 Cited by: . Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 94, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20256 (5th Cir. Miss. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

199 F.3d 239 p.244

1025 Cited by: . Heimann v. National Elevator Indus. Pension Fund, 187 F.3d 493, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20682, 23 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2158 (5th Cir. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Warning}

187 F.3d 493 p.500

1026 Cited by: . T T E A v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16363 (5th Cir. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18{Caution}

181 F.3d 676 p.681 181 F.3d 676 p.682

1027 Cited by: . Copling v. The Container Store, Inc., 174 F.3d 590, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8545 (5th Cir. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Warning}

174 F.3d 590 p.595

1028 Cited by: . Giles v. Nylcare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 6370, 22 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2974 (5th Cir. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN11, HN17, HN19{Caution}

172 F.3d 332 p.337

1029 Cited by: . Page 140 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Humphries v. Various Fed. United States INS Emples., 164 F.3d 936, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 696 (5th Cir. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN25 {Caution}

164 F.3d 936 p.943

1030 Cited by: . McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 21915, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2368 (5th Cir. Tex. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29{Warning}

155 F.3d 507 p.512 155 F.3d 507 p.516

1031 Cited by: . Chair King v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35303, 11 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 142, 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1244 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

131 F.3d 507 p.510

1032 Cited by: . Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33801 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

128 F.3d 919 p.922

1033 Cited by: . Branson v. Greyhound Lines, 126 F.3d 747, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29922, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2078, 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2847 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) {Caution}

126 F.3d 747 p.754

1034 Cited by: . Branson v. Greyhound Lines, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33989 (5th Cir. Tex. Oct. 30, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33989

1035 Cited by: . Sam L. Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 19504 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

117 F.3d 922 p.924 117 F.3d 922 p.925 Page 141 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1036 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. NGC Settlement Trust (In re National Gypsum Co.) , 118 F.3d 1056, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18938, 11 Tex. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 233, 31 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 237, 38 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 722 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25{Caution}

Distinguished by: 118 F.3d 1056 p.1064 Cited by: 118 F.3d 1056 p.1062

1037 Cited by: . Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, A.G., 115 F.3d 315, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13676 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Warning}

115 F.3d 315 p.320

1038 Cited by: . Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 113 F.3d 540, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21157 (5th Cir. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN24, HN25{Questioned}

113 F.3d 540 p.542

1039 Cited by: . Rivet v. Regions Bank, 108 F.3d 576, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12775, 11 Tex. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 150 (5th Cir. La. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 {Questioned}

108 F.3d 576 p.583

1040 Cited by: . Kramer v. Smith Barney, 80 F.3d 1080, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 8861 (5th Cir. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

80 F.3d 1080 p.1082

1041 Cited by: . Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (5th Cir. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN20 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

44 F.3d 362 p.366 44 F.3d 362 p.368 Page 142 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1042 Cited by: . Hubbard v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 42 F.3d 942, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 509, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2825 (5th Cir. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

42 F.3d 942 p.945

1043 Cited by: . Rozzell v. Security Servs., 38 F.3d 819, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33282, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2642 (5th Cir. Tex. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

38 F.3d 819 p.822

1044 Cited by: . Parham v. Carrier Corp., 9 F.3d 383, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 31597, 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2943, 126 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10939 (5th Cir. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

9 F.3d 383 p.390

1045 Distinguished by: . Self--Insurance Inst. of Am. v. Korioth, 993 F.2d 479, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 14324, 17 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1751 (5th Cir. Tex. 1993){Warning}

993 F.2d 479 p.483

1046 Cited by: . Grantham v. Avondale Indus., 964 F.2d 471, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14844, 1993 A.M.C. 1671 (5th Cir. La. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

964 F.2d 471 p.474

1047 Cited by: . Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas, 963 F.2d 806, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14285, 1992 A.M.C. 2672 (5th Cir. La. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Caution}

963 F.2d 806 p.808

1048 Cited by: . In re Meyerland Co., 960 F.2d 512, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10210 (5th Cir. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

960 F.2d 512 p.519 Page 143 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1049 Followed by: . Jamail, Inc. v. Carpenters Dist. Council of Houston Pension & Welfare Trusts, 954 F.2d 299, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2659, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2629 (5th Cir. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

954 F.2d 299 p.303

1050 Cited by: . El Paso v. Socorro, 917 F.2d 7, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19914, 18 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 766 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

917 F.2d 7 p.8

1051 Cited by: . In re Meyerland Co., 910 F.2d 1257, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15675 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

910 F.2d 1257 p.1261

1052 Cited by: . Trans World Airlines v. Mattox, 897 F.2d 773, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4712, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 122, 1990--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P68983 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Warning}

897 F.2d 773 p.781

1053 Followed by: . Kidd v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 891 F.2d 540, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 104, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56455 (5th Cir. Tex. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

891 F.2d 540 p.542

1054 Followed by, Cited by: . Aaron v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 876 F.2d 1157, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9995, 1990 A.M.C. 2351, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 830 (5th Cir. La. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 876 F.2d 1157 p.1161 Cited by: 876 F.2d 1157 p.1162 Page 144 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1055 Cited by: . Degan v. Ford Motor Co., 869 F.2d 889, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4955, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2438, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2151, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11092 (5th Cir. La. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

869 F.2d 889 p.894

1056 Explained by, Cited by: . Richardson v. United Steelworkers of America, 864 F.2d 1162, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1141, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 138, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2571, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10939 (5th Cir. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

Explained by: 864 F.2d 1162 p.1168 864 F.2d 1162 p.1169 Cited by: 864 F.2d 1162 p.1168

1057 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17750 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Questioned}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 862 F.2d 491 p.511 Cited by: 862 F.2d 491 p.496

1058 Cited by: . Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13602, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 305, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 819 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Caution}

855 F.2d 1160 p.1163 855 F.2d 1160 p.1165 855 F.2d 1160 p.1168

1059 Cited by: . Chuska Energy Co. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc., 854 F.2d 727, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12287, 108 Oil & Gas Rep. 540 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN18{Positive}

854 F.2d 727 p.730

1060 Cited by: . Page 145 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Grifﬁs v. Gulf Coast Pre--Stress Co., 850 F.2d 1090, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10570, 1988 A.M.C. 2994 (5th Cir. La. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17 {Positive}

850 F.2d 1090 p.1091

1061 Distinguished by: . Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Medical & Ben. Plan, 845 F.2d 1286, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7027, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2473 (5th Cir. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

845 F.2d 1286 p.1288

1062 Cited by: . Beers v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 836 F.2d 910, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1391 (5th Cir. Miss. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Questioned}

836 F.2d 910 p.913

1063 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Texas Employers' Ins. Asso. v. Jackson, 820 F.2d 1406, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585, 1988 A.M.C. 1202 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 820 F.2d 1406 p.1423 Cited by: 820 F.2d 1406 p.1418 820 F.2d 1406 p.1419

1064 Cited by: . News--Texan, Inc. v. Garland, 814 F.2d 216, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4932, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 932 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Positive}

814 F.2d 216 p.221

1065 Cited by: . Fabrique, Inc. v. Corman, 813 F.2d 725, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4571 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16{Caution}

813 F.2d 725 p.726

1066 Cited by: . Vatican Shrimp Co. v. Solis, 820 F.2d 674, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3452, 1987 A.M.C. 2426 (5th Cir. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution} Page 146 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

820 F.2d 674 p.680

1067 Explained by, Cited by: . Oliver v. Trunkline Gas Co., 796 F.2d 86, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37307 (5th Cir. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

Explained by: 796 F.2d 86 p.87 796 F.2d 86 p.89 Cited by: 796 F.2d 86 p.87 796 F.2d 86 p.88

1068 Cited by: . Oliver v. Trunkline Gas Co., 789 F.2d 341, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25051 (5th Cir. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

789 F.2d 341 p.343

1069 Cited by: . New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. New Orleans, 782 F.2d 1236, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22695 (5th Cir. La. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Warning}

782 F.2d 1236 p.1240

1070 Cited by: . O'Quinn v. Manuel, 773 F.2d 605, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23466 (5th Cir. La. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Positive}

773 F.2d 605 p.607

1071 Cited by: . O'Quinn v. Manuel, 767 F.2d 174, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21003 (5th Cir. La. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

767 F.2d 174 p.176

1072 Cited by: . Eitmann v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 730 F.2d 359, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23249, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2122, 100 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10985 (5th Cir. La. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

730 F.2d 359 p.364 730 F.2d 359 p.365 Page 147 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1073 Cited by: . Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Div. of Litton Systems, Inc., 723 F.2d 1173, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25957, 40 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1304 (5th Cir. Miss. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution}

723 F.2d 1173 p.1179 723 F.2d 1173 p.1180

1074 Followed by, Cited by: . Powers v. South Cent. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions etc., 719 F.2d 760, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15717, 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2552 (5th Cir. Tex. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29{Warning}

Followed by: 719 F.2d 760 p.764 Cited by: 719 F.2d 760 p.763 719 F.2d 760 p.765 719 F.2d 760 p.766 719 F.2d 760 p.767

1075 Cited by: . Sandefur v. Cherry, 718 F.2d 682, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16084 (5th Cir. La. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Caution}

718 F.2d 682 p.684 5TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

1076 Cited by: . Woolever v. Taylor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42694 (N.D. Miss. June 23, 2006)

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42694

1077 Cited by: . Sony Ericsson Mobile Communs. (USA), Inc. v. Wireless Agents, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39278 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39278

1078 Cited by: . Ambulatory Infusion Therapy Specialists, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39268 (S.D. Tex. June 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25 Page 148 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39268

1079 Cited by: . Miss. Bar v. Muhammad, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49407 (S.D. Miss. June 9, 2006)

1080 Cited by: . St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Acordia Nat'l, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37781 (S.D. Tex. June 8, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37781

1081 Cited by: . Enron Corp. Secs. v. Enron Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43145 (S.D. Tex. June 7, 2006){Caution}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43145

1082 Cited by: . Berthelot v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51603 (E.D. La. June 1, 2006)

1083 Cited by: . Koppel v. Eustis Ins., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31378 (E.D. La. May 19, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Positive}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31378

1084 Cited by: . Beard v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33485 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11, HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33485

1085 Cited by: . Harrison v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 430 F. Supp. 2d 591, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27547 (W.D. La. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27547

1086 Cited by: . Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Aetna Health, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28413 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28413 Page 149 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1087 Followed by: . Texas v. Approximately $ 3,551,510.67, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30953 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30953

1088 Cited by: . Hinojosa v. Guidant Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28793 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11, HN24{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28793

1089 Cited by: . Buenteo v. SBC Communs. Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23529 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23529

1090 Cited by: . Sports at Work Enters. v. Silber, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12176 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12176

1091 Cited by: . 4052898 Manitoba, LTD. v. Titan Oil & Gas, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16183 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16183

1092 Cited by: . Specialty Diving of La. v. Mahoney, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3609 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Caution}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3609

1093 Cited by: . R. L. Lackner, Inc. v. Sanchez, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40388 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40388 Page 150 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1094 Followed by, Cited by: . Cisneros v. Sanchez, 403 F. Supp. 2d 588, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37724, 34 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097 (S.D. Tex. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

Followed by: 403 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.593 Cited by: 403 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.591

1095 Cited by: . Texas ex rel. Ven--A--Care of the Fla. Keys, Inc. v. Abbott Labs. Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42434 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42434

1096 Cited by: . Ra Inv. I, LLC v. Smith & Frank Group Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36208 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36208

1097 Cited by: . Ling v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31734 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31734

1098 Cited by: . Impressive Printing, Inc. v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36883 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36883

1099 Cited by: . Leggette v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24405 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24405

1100 Cited by: . Downs v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22531 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Cited} Page 151 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22531

1101 Cited by: . Cantwell v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20597 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN22, HN25 {Positive}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20597

1102 Cited by: . Emmett v. Strawn, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33989 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33989

1103 Cited by: . Transitional Hosps. Corp. of La., Inc. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17823 (E.D. La. Aug. 16, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17823

1104 Followed by: . United States v. Texas, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21264 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21264

1105 Cited by: . Mem'l Herman Hosp. Sys. v. Great--West Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40585 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40585

1106 Followed by: . United States v. Texas, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21210 (E.D. Tex. June 22, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21210

1107 Cited by: . Goldman v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11978 (E.D. La. June 16, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9{Analysis} Page 152 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11978

1108 Cited by: . Myers v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 587, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12607 (N.D. Tex. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

368 F. Supp. 2d 587 p.588

1109 Cited by: . Goss v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32755 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32755

1110 Cited by: . Davis v. Vitter, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6222 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6222

1111 Cited by: . Newby v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litig.) , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4494 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4494

1112 Cited by: . Bigelow v. Sherlock, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1598 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1598

1113 Cited by: . Bobo v. Christus Health, 359 F. Supp. 2d 552, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4237 (E.D. Tex. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

359 F. Supp. 2d 552 p.555

1114 Cited by: . Kasten v. Jerrytone, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 340 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 340 Page 153 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1115 Criticized by: . Sims v. AT&T Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26802 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26802

1116 Cited by: . Tex. First Nat'l Bank v. Wu, 347 F. Supp. 2d 389, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26983 (S.D. Tex. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

347 F. Supp. 2d 389 p.396

1117 Cited by: . Sono Tech Enters. v. New Orleans Reg'l Physician Hosp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19006 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Warning}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19006

1118 Followed by: . M, G, & B Servs. v. Buras, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16624, 2004--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74563 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN12, HN18 {Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16624

1119 Cited by: . Argenbright v. Zix Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14911 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14911

1120 Cited by: . Hernandez v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777 (E.D. La. July 7, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12777

1121 Followed by: . Object Tech. Info. Specialists Corp. v. Sci. & Eng'g Assoc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11964 (E.D. La. June 28, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11964 Page 154 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1122 Cited by: . Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge v. EPA, 323 F. Supp. 2d 769, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12779, 59 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1123 (M.D. La. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9 , HN10, HN25{Cited}

323 F. Supp. 2d 769 p.772

1123 Distinguished by: . Syracuse v. Valero Energy Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10959 (E.D. La. June 15, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10959

1124 Cited by: . Commercializadora Portimex, S.A. de C.V. v. Thionville Labs., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10947 (E.D. La. June 10, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN7, HN9, HN10{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10947

1125 Cited by: . Southeast Tex. Envtl., L.L.C. v. BP Amoco Chem. Co., 329 F. Supp. 2d 853, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15436 (S.D. Tex. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

329 F. Supp. 2d 853 p.858

1126 Cited by: . Taylor v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6910 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6910

1127 Cited by: . Capco Int'l, Inc. v. Haas Outdoors, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6284, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28797 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6284

1128 Cited by: . Archer v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 805, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25899 (S.D. Miss. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

324 F. Supp. 2d 805 p.808 Page 155 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1129 Cited by: . Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4671, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2974 (E.D. La. Mar. 22, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN9, HN10 {Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4671

1130 Cited by: . Adams v. GMAC, 307 F. Supp. 2d 812, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10470 (N.D. Miss. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

307 F. Supp. 2d 812 p.817

1131 Cited by: . Hurt v. Del Papa Distrib. Co., L.P., 425 F. Supp. 2d 853, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29366 (S.D. Tex. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7{Caution}

425 F. Supp. 2d 853 p.855

1132 Cited by: . Lynn County Hosp. Dist. v. Denton, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 279, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2302 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28 , HN29{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 279

1133 Cited by: . Am. First Communs., Inc. v. Shadowlands Communs., L.L.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48(E.D. La. Jan. 5, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN9, HN10{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48

1134 Cited by: . Amos v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25763 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 29, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25763

1135 Cited by: . Metoyer v. Am. Int'l Life Assur. Co., 296 F. Supp. 2d 745, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23040, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1376 (S.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9{Caution}

296 F. Supp. 2d 745 p.747 Page 156 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1136 Cited by: . Dodson & Hooks v. Caskey, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21797 (E.D. La. Nov. 25, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21797

1137 Cited by: . Goins v. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist., 424 F. Supp. 2d 902, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27027 (S.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Analysis}

424 F. Supp. 2d 902 p.906

1138 Cited by: . Duchesne--Bakerv. Extendicare Health Servs., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18168, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1086 (E.D. La. Oct. 9, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18168

1139 Cited by: . Tittle v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivative & ERISA Litig.) , 284 F. Supp. 2d 511, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17492, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2281 (S.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Caution}

284 F. Supp. 2d 511 p.626

1140 Cited by: . Landry v. Cross Country Bank, 431 F. Supp. 2d 682, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27033 (S.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27033

1141 Cited by: . Arensberg v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26949 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26949

1142 Cited by: . Anderson v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 326 F. Supp. 2d 760, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25584 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 {Positive}

326 F. Supp. 2d 760 p.764 Page 157 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1143 Cited by: . Petty v. Gulf Guar. Ins. Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 815, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25292 (N.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

303 F. Supp. 2d 815 p.817

1144 Followed by: . Brocato v. Angelo Brocato Ice Cream & Confectionery, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15308 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15308

1145 Cited by: . Moore v. Powers, 279 F. Supp. 2d 821, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15214, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1696 (E.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7{Cited}

279 F. Supp. 2d 821 p.824

1146 Cited by: . Health Care Serv. Corp. v. Tap Pharm. Prods., 274 F. Supp. 2d 807, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13556, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2891 (E.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

274 F. Supp. 2d 807 p.811

1147 Cited by: . Dallas County v. Teter, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414

1148 Cited by: . Williams v. Cimarron Mortg. Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25160 (N.D. Miss. July 30, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25160

1149 Cited by: . Brocato v. Angelo Brocato Ice Cream & Confectionery, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12770 (E.D. La. July 22, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12770 Page 158 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1150 Cited by: . Gardon v. City of El Paso, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14254 (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14254

1151 Cited by: . Burton v. Southwood Door Co., 305 F. Supp. 2d 629, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24746 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN25{Cited}

305 F. Supp. 2d 629 p.635

1152 Cited by: . Frye v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25344 (S.D. Miss. June 23, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25344

1153 Cited by: . Smith v. Rush Retail Ctrs., Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 479, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24338 (W.D. Tex. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Positive}

291 F. Supp. 2d 479 p.488

1154 Cited by: . Winkler v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 266 F. Supp. 2d 509, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9905 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

266 F. Supp. 2d 509 p.512

1155 Cited by: . Kirby v. Sbc Servs., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6921 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6921

1156 Followed by, Cited by: . Copiah County Bd. of Supervisors v. Motor Classics Ltd., 269 F. Supp. 2d 763, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11494 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: Page 159 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

269 F. Supp. 2d 763 p.766 Cited by: 269 F. Supp. 2d 763 p.765

1157 Cited by: . Dubose v. Merchs. & Farmers Bank, 318 F. Supp. 2d 419, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25568 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

318 F. Supp. 2d 419 p.424

1158 Cited by: . Washington v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1342 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238

1159 Cited by: . Southwest Bank v. Mgmt. Counsel for Emple. Beneﬁts, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1953 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1953

1160 Cited by: . Jones v. Tex. Health Choice, L.C., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24039, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1153 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24039

1161 Cited by: . Jamison v. Purdue Pharma Co., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4439 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24 {Caution}

251 F. Supp. 2d 1315 p.1324

1162 Followed by: . Stansbury v. Sewell Cadillac--Chevrolet, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1682 (E.D. La. Feb. 4, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1682

1163 Cited by: . Carson v. H & R Block, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 669, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9331 (S.D. Miss. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution} Page 160 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

250 F. Supp. 2d 669 p.671

1164 Cited by: . Maguire v. Telcom Global Solutions, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 397 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 397

1165 Cited by: . Allred v. Bauhaus USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 583, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26237 (N.D. Miss. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Cited}

243 F. Supp. 2d 583 p.585

1166 Cited by: . Ochsner Health Plan v. N. La. Physician Hosp. Org., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24250 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24250

1167 Cited by: . Rodriguez v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21894 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21894

1168 Followed by: . Fla. Marine Transporters, Inc. v. Trinity Marine Prods., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18967 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18967

1169 Cited by: . Riley v. Ala. Great Southern R.R., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18645 (E.D. La. Sept. 27, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18645

1170 Cited by: . Threadgill v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 786, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18210 (E.D. Tex. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited} Page 161 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

223 F. Supp. 2d 786 p.787

1171 Cited by: . Wells v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 2d 744, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14931 (S.D. Miss. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

217 F. Supp. 2d 744 p.749

1172 Followed by: . Gomez v. Jamieson Mfg. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12677 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12677

1173 Cited by: . McLachlan v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12558, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2778 (E.D. La. July 3, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12558

1174 Cited by: . Chambless v. Excel Communs., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10859 (N.D. Tex. June 17, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10859

1175 Cited by: . Transitional Hosps. Corp. of La., Inc. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10852 (E.D. La. June 11, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10852

1176 Cited by: . Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Balinas, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10830 (E.D. La. June 7, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10830

1177 Cited by: . Brietling United States v. Porter, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10246 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Positive} Page 162 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10246

1178 Cited by: . Robertson v. Baker Oil Tools, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368 (N.D. Tex. May 23, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368

1179 Cited by: . Perkins v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 204 F. Supp. 2d 991, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9626 (W.D. Tex. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Positive}

204 F. Supp. 2d 991 p.995

1180 Cited by: . Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, 208 F.R.D. 575, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11260 (E.D. Tex. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Positive}

208 F.R.D. 575 p.579

1181 Cited by: . Maitra v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25900 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN23, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25900

1182 Cited by: . Goff v. Shadow Lake Managment Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5050 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5050

1183 Cited by: . Ochsner Health Plan v. N. La. Physician Hosp. Org., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5072 (E.D. La. Mar. 13, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18 {Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5072

1184 Cited by: . Crouch v. GMC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3414 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 Page 163 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3414

1185 Cited by: . Hinojosa v. Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d 703, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20717 (S.D. Tex. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24, HN25{Positive}

214 F. Supp. 2d 703 p.705

1186 Cited by: . Jones v. Hibernia Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3197 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3197

1187 Cited by: . Collins v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3171 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3171

1188 Cited by: . Weiner v. Tex. Health Choice, L.C., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2654 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2654

1189 Cited by: . Ohler v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2368 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2368

1190 Cited by: . Breathwit v. City of Terrell Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20111, 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40891, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34420 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20111

1191 Cited by: . Rogers v. CIGNA Healthcare of Tex., Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 652, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25004 (W.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Positive} Page 164 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

227 F. Supp. 2d 652 p.654

1192 Cited by: . Evans v. Watts, 194 F. Supp. 2d 572, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23478 (E.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

194 F. Supp. 2d 572 p.574

1193 Cited by: . Rogers v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 2d 661, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17541 (N.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

192 F. Supp. 2d 661 p.664

1194 Cited by: . Furstonberg v. Mintz, 170 F. Supp. 2d 695, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17451 (N.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

170 F. Supp. 2d 695 p.697

1195 Cited by: . Dumas v. Excel Communs., Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16832 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Positive}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16832

1196 Cited by: . Williams v. Corbett, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16789 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16789

1197 Cited by: . Ruacho v. Aetna U. S. Healthcare of N. Tex., Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16053 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16053

1198 Cited by: . Warner v. Whitney Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15185 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15185 Page 165 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1199 Cited by: . Minh Tran v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14039 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN24{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14039

1200 Cited by: . Curtis v. SBC FSA Plan, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15156 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15156

1201 Cited by: . Corporate Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Tucker & Clark, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11281 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11281

1202 Cited by: . Parker v. Omni Energy Servs. Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11880 (E.D. La. July 24, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11880

1203 Cited by: . Matthews v. Stewart, 207 F. Supp. 2d 496, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24127 (M.D. La. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Positive}

207 F. Supp. 2d 496 p.498

1204 Cited by: . Davila v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24648 (N.D. Tex. June 29, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24648

1205 Cited by: . Carpenter v. Harris Cmty. Health, 154 F. Supp. 2d 928, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11420 (N.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

154 F. Supp. 2d 928 p.930 Page 166 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1206 Cited by: . Collins v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25982 (S.D. Miss. June 21, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Warning}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25982

1207 Cited by: . Binion v. Franklin Collection Servs., 147 F. Supp. 2d 519, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9155 (S.D. Miss. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

147 F. Supp. 2d 519 p.521

1208 Followed by, Cited by: . Owens v. Catholic Diocese of Jackson, 169 F. Supp. 2d 588, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18130 (S.D. Miss. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

Followed by: 169 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.593 Cited by: 169 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.591 169 F. Supp. 2d 588 p.592

1209 Cited by: . Household Bank, F.S.B. v. Allen, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8796 (S.D. Miss. May 25, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18, HN25{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8796

1210 Cited by: . Galveston Linehandlers, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local No. 20 , 140 F. Supp. 2d 741, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6553, 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2231 (S.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

140 F. Supp. 2d 741 p.745

1211 Cited by: . Brock v. Provident Am. Ins. Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 652, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852 (N.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Positive}

144 F. Supp. 2d 652 p.656

1212 Cited by: . Balart v. Delta Airlines, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4390 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN24{Caution} Page 167 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4390

1213 Cited by: . Frost v. Harper, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25094, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2792 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25094 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2792 p.2797

1214 Cited by: . Wald v. C. M. Life Ins. Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2593 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2593

1215 Cited by: . Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10616, 85 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 926 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10616

1216 Cited by: . Smith v. Baker Hughes Int'l Branches, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 2d 920, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2252, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2182 (S.D. Tex. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

131 F. Supp. 2d 920 p.922

1217 Cited by: . Navarro v. Bell Helicopter Servs., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 707, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16003 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 707

1218 Cited by: . Barton v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 128 F. Supp. 2d 982, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 820, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2505 (S.D. Miss. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17{Positive}

128 F. Supp. 2d 982 p.986

1219 Cited by: . Page 168 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Lakeland Anesthesia v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18626 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18626

1220 Cited by: . Bryceland v. AT&T Corp., 122 F. Supp. 2d 703, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17198 (N.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

122 F. Supp. 2d 703 p.706

1221 Cited by: . Lakeview Med. Ctr. LLC v. Aetna Health Mgmt., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17271 (E.D. La. Nov. 17, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17271

1222 Followed by, Cited by: . Halfmann v. USAG Ins. Servs., 118 F. Supp. 2d 714, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15670 (N.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 118 F. Supp. 2d 714 p.721 Cited by: 118 F. Supp. 2d 714 p.717

1223 Cited by: . Board of Trustees of the Total Community Action, Inc. Emples. Retirement Plan v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 112 F. Supp. 2d 602, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16514 (E.D. La. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Cited}

112 F. Supp. 2d 602 p.605

1224 Cited by: . Cornyn v. Real Parties in Interest, 110 F. Supp. 2d 514, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18458 (E.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

110 F. Supp. 2d 514 p.524

1225 Cited by: . Cristantielli v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17558 (N.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN11 , HN24{Positive} Page 169 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

113 F. Supp. 2d 1055 p.1058

1226 Cited by: . Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. United Healthcare of La., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20382 (E.D. La. June 30, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20382

1227 Cited by: . Richard v. Spicuzza, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9365 (E.D. La. June 26, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9365

1228 Cited by: . Saia v. Universal Card Servs. Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9494 (E.D. La. June 23, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9494

1229 Cited by: . Greer v. MAJR Fin. Corp., 105 F. Supp. 2d 583, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10474 (S.D. Miss. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN20, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Cited}

105 F. Supp. 2d 583 p.586

1230 Cited by: . Blakeley v. United Cable Sys., 105 F. Supp. 2d 574, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10464 (S.D. Miss. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

105 F. Supp. 2d 574 p.580

1231 Cited by: . Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8540, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1819 (E.D. La. June 14, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8540

1232 Cited by: . Hall v. City of Alexandria, 111 F. Supp. 2d 785, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12569 (W.D. La. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution} Page 170 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

111 F. Supp. 2d 785 p.787

1233 Cited by: . Drawhorn v. Qwest Communs. Int'l, 121 F. Supp. 2d 554, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17074 (E.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17, HN18{Caution}

121 F. Supp. 2d 554 p.558

1234 Cited by: . Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Tex. Ins. Co., 97 F. Supp. 2d 800, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7921 (S.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

97 F. Supp. 2d 800 p.803

1235 Cited by: . Wingrave v. Hebert, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4336 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4336

1236 Cited by: . Cox v. UPS, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2635 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2000)

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2635 p.2637

1237 Cited by: . Hewitt v. AAA Ins. Agency, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19664 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 1999)

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19664

1238 Cited by: . Communications Workers of Am. v. SBC Disability Income Plan, 80 F. Supp. 2d 631, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20600 (W.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

80 F. Supp. 2d 631 p.632

1239 Cited by: . Schappel v. UICI, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19444 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25{Positive}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19444 Page 171 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1240 Cited by: . Abarca v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 566, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17992 (E.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25{Cited}

75 F. Supp. 2d 566 p.570

1241 Cited by: . Hodges v. Liggett Group, 60 F. Supp. 2d 627, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13088 (S.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17

60 F. Supp. 2d 627 p.628

1242 Cited by: . Brooks v. Southern Univ. & Agric. & Mech. College, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693 (E.D. La. Aug. 16, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693

1243 Cited by: . Caravanas v. Hall, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12741, 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1069 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12741 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1069 p.1070

1244 Cited by: . Segal v. Smith, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11549 (E.D. La. July 23, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN22, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11549

1245 Cited by: . Mid South Constructors v. Malone Mortg. Co. Am., Ltd., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11187 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11187

1246 Cited by: . Kelly v. Advantage Health, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6903 (E.D. La. May 11, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6903 Page 172 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1247 Cited by: . Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. Mannesmann Dematic Rapistan Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6947 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6947

1248 Cited by: . Phommyvong v. Muniz, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3101 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3101

1249 Cited by: . Plocica v. Nylcare, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 658, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3596 (N.D. Tex. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN25{Analysis}

43 F. Supp. 2d 658 p.661

1250 Cited by: . IMT, Inc. v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1083 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1083

1251 Cited by: . Banta v. Louisiana, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22208, 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 399 (M.D. La. Jan. 7, 1999)

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22208 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 399 p.400

1252 Cited by: . Tomme v. Dinehart, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19758 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19758

1253 Cited by: . Gore v. Grand Casinos of La., Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23257 (W.D. La. Sept. 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23257 Page 173 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1254 Cited by: . Bourg v. Johnson, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14918 (E.D. La. Sept. 18, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14918

1255 Cited by: . Banihashemrad v. Lufthansa Cargo AG, 28 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18910 (W.D. Tex. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24{Positive}

28 F. Supp. 2d 1014 p.1016

1256 Cited by: . Jones v. Barnes, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22904 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 28, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Warning}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22904

1257 Cited by: . Chatman v. Lawson, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13532 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13532

1258 Cited by: . Cyr v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 12 F. Supp. 2d 556, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11286 (N.D. Tex. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Questioned}

12 F. Supp. 2d 556 p.565

1259 Cited by: . Saffold v. Fortenberry, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12065 (N.D. Miss. July 13, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12065

1260 Cited by: . Vencor Hosps. Tex. v. National Found. Life Ins. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9978 (N.D. Tex. June 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9978

1261 Cited by: . Page 174 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Karydas v. Houston Grinding & Mfg. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21321 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21321

1262 Cited by: . Gandy v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 224 B.R. 340, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11410 (S.D. Miss. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

224 B.R. 340 p.343

1263 Cited by: . Sunrise Shipping Agency v. Universal Maritime Servs., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6426(E.D. La. Apr. 28, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6426

1264 Cited by: . Baron v. Strassner, 7 F. Supp. 2d 871, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6116, Blue Sky L. Rep. (CCH) P74159 (S.D. Tex. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Cited}

7 F. Supp. 2d 871 p.873

1265 Cited by: . Isbell v. Stewart & Stevenson, Ltd., 9 F. Supp. 2d 731, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9861 (S.D. Tex. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

9 F. Supp. 2d 731 p.732

1266 Cited by: . Gassie v. SMH Swiss Corp. for Microelectric & Watchmaking Indus., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2003 (E.D. La. Feb. 17, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2003

1267 Cited by: . Ketchum v. Shaw, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2650 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN20, HN25{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2650

1268 Cited by: . Page 175 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Witten v. PaciﬁCare of Texas, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889

1269 Cited by: . City of Fort Worth v. City of Dallas, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1132 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1132

1270 Cited by: . Crum v. Mississippi Mun. Serv. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1297 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1297

1271 Cited by: . Schaper Co. v. C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22238 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 30, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN20, HN25 {Positive}

1272 Cited by: . Copling v. Container Store, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19824 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Warning}

1273 Cited by: . Bullard v. Southwest Crop Ins. Agency, 984 F. Supp. 531, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19283 (E.D. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

984 F. Supp. 531 p.534

1274 Cited by: . Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 982 F. Supp. 1253, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18012 (E.D. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

982 F. Supp. 1253 p.1255

1275 Cited by: . Cartegena v. Continental Airlines, 10 F. Supp. 2d 677, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22679 (S.D. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Cited} Page 176 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

10 F. Supp. 2d 677 p.679

1276 Cited by: . Sherron v. Private Issue by Discover, 977 F. Supp. 804, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14590 (N.D. Miss. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN20, HN25 {Positive}

977 F. Supp. 804 p.806

1277 Cited by: . Blum v. Harris Methodist Health Plan, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19732 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17{Cited}

1278 Cited by: . Ridgewood Clinics v. Verma, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9879 (N.D. Miss. May 2, 1997)

1279 Cited by: . Arnold by & Through Arnold v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 973 F. Supp. 726, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16953 (S.D. Tex. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 , HN24{Warning}

973 F. Supp. 726 p.730

1280 Cited by: . Rogers v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9963 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17{Positive}

1281 Cited by: . Copeland v. Rice, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4719 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

1282 Cited by: . George v. Borden Chems. & Plastics Operating Ltd. Pshp., 960 F. Supp. 92, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5011 (M.D. La. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25 {Cited}

960 F. Supp. 92 p.94

1283 Cited by: . Hampton v. Harris, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4800 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 Page 177 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1284 Cited by: . Wright v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 959 F. Supp. 356, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3456 (N.D. Miss. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

959 F. Supp. 356 p.362 959 F. Supp. 356 p.364

1285 Cited by: . Ren--DanFarms v. Monsanto Co., 952 F. Supp. 370, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 712 (W.D. La. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

952 F. Supp. 370 p.373

1286 Cited by: . Taylor v. Carter, 948 F. Supp. 1290, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20633 (W.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

948 F. Supp. 1290 p.1292

1287 Cited by: . Cinquemano v. Ciba--GeigyCorp., 962 F. Supp. 862, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20946 (M.D. La. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

962 F. Supp. 862 p.864

1288 Cited by: . Robertson v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22631 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Cited}

1289 Cited by: . Alomang v. Freeport--McMoRanInc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15908 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22, HN24, HN25{Cited}

1290 Cited by: . Park Nat'l Bank v. Kaminetzky, 976 F. Supp. 571, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21746 (S.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

976 F. Supp. 571 p.575

1291 Cited by: . Page 178 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Gabner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 1295, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13206 (E.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

938 F. Supp. 1295 p.1300

1292 Cited by: . Augillard v. Tidewater Marine, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11850 (E.D. La. Aug. 15, 1996){Warning}

1293 Cited by: . Logue v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22007 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1294 Cited by: . Brown v. Inter--CityFed. Bank, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21455, 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 318 (N.D. Miss. June 11, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Caution}

1295 Cited by: . Brown v. Inter--CityFed. Bank for Sav., 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 318 (N.D. Miss. June 11, 1996)

72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 318 p.319

1296 Cited by: . Barrois v. Hilton Title, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8172, 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 893 (E.D. La. June 10, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17 {Positive}

1297 Cited by: . Barrios v. Hilton Title, 3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 893 (E.D. La. June 10, 1996)

3 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 893 p.894

1298 Cited by: . City of Laredo v. Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 935 F. Supp. 895, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12036 (S.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15, HN16, HN17, HN18{Caution}

935 F. Supp. 895 p.898

1299 Followed by, Cited by: . Page 179 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1st Nat'l Reserve v. Vaughan, 931 F. Supp. 463, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9349 (E.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11{Caution}

Followed by: 931 F. Supp. 463 p.468 Cited by: 931 F. Supp. 463 p.465

1300 Cited by: . Mora v. Pazo, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6787 (E.D. La. May 13, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN25{Cited}

1301 Cited by: . Highland Hills Hosp. v. Department of Health & Hosps., 926 F. Supp. 83, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6376 (M.D. La. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

926 F. Supp. 83 p.85

1302 Cited by: . Gannett River States Publ. Corp. v. Mississippi State Univ., 945 F. Supp. 128, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17325 (S.D. Miss. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9 , HN10{Cited}

945 F. Supp. 128 p.130

1303 Cited by: . Bartley v. Borden, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3755 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

1304 Cited by: . Chertkov v. TPLC, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 608, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2446, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14516 (N.D. Tex. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Questioned}

916 F. Supp. 608 p.610

1305 Cited by: . Lamb v. Laird, 907 F. Supp. 1033, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19126, 69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1262 (S.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24, HN25{Cited}

907 F. Supp. 1033 p.1035

1306 Cited by: . Page 180 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Thompson v. Nashua Corp., 907 F. Supp. 247, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18618, 1996--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P71356 (W.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17{Cited}

907 F. Supp. 247 p.248

1307 Cited by: . Flowerette v. Heartland Healthcare Ctr., 903 F. Supp. 1042, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19554, 2 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P2--180(N.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

903 F. Supp. 1042 p.1044

1308 Cited by: . Amoco Chem. Co. v. Tex Tin Corp., 902 F. Supp. 730, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15937 (S.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 , HN24, HN25{Caution}

902 F. Supp. 730 p.733 902 F. Supp. 730 p.735

1309 Cited by: . Moore ex rel. Mississippi v. Abbott Lab., 900 F. Supp. 26, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13989, 1995--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P71157 (S.D. Miss. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

900 F. Supp. 26 p.33

1310 Cited by: . Odom v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22260 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 21, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1311 Cited by: . Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21529 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

1312 Cited by: . Logue v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44607 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 1995){Analysis}

70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44607 Page 181 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1313 Cited by: . Little v. Bellsouth Telecommunication, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11208 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

1314 Cited by: . Lacoste v. Stamps, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10634 (E.D. La. July 24, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Questioned}

1315 Cited by: . City of New Orleans v. Kernan, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9200 (E.D. La. June 26, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Analysis}

1316 Cited by: . Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 1388, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8095 (S.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Warning}

888 F. Supp. 1388 p.1396

1317 Cited by: . Carway v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 183 B.R. 769, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 8676 (S.D. Tex. 1995){Cited}

183 B.R. 769 p.773

1318 Cited by: . Carway v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 183 B.R. 769, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8676 (N.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18, HN25{Cited}

1319 Cited by: . Dumont v. Charles Schwab & Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5992 (E.D. La. May 3, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Cited}

1320 Cited by: . Merkel v. Federal Express Corp., 886 F. Supp. 561, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6443 (N.D. Miss. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN20, HN22 , HN25, HN29{Positive}

886 F. Supp. 561 p.564 886 F. Supp. 561 p.565 Page 182 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1321 Cited by: . Texas Life, Health, Accident & Hosp. Serv. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21964 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN12, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

1322 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 HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

883 F. Supp. 94 p.98

1323 Cited by: . Iwag v. Geisel Compania Maritima, S.A., 882 F. Supp. 597, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4828 (N.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Caution}

882 F. Supp. 597 p.604

1324 Cited by: . United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Bradleys' Elec., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19685, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1559 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

1325 Cited by: . United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Bradleys Elec. Inc., 35 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1559 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 1995){Cited}

35 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1559 p.1561

1326 Cited by: . Venacare U.S.A. v. Alternative Health Group, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3736 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

1327 Cited by: . Barringer v. Parker Bros. Employee Retirement Fund, 877 F. Supp. 358, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1708 (N.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25 {Cited}

877 F. Supp. 358 p.360

1328 Cited by: . Page 183 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Herrington v. J.R. Pounds, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 133, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 964 (S.D. Miss. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

874 F. Supp. 133 p.136

1329 Cited by: . Cabahug v. Geisel Compania Maritima S.A., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 556 (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

1330 Cited by: . KVHP TV Partners v. Channel 12, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 756, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 704 (E.D. Tex. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

874 F. Supp. 756 p.759

1331 Cited by: . Transtexas Gas Corp. v. Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 268, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20409 (S.D. Tex. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

881 F. Supp. 268 p.273

1332 Cited by: . Richardson v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 865 F. Supp. 1210, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13093 (E.D. La. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20, HN24 {Caution}

865 F. Supp. 1210 p.1212

1333 Cited by: . Gray v. Murphy Oil USA, 874 F. Supp. 748, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18934 (S.D. Miss. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN24{Cited}

874 F. Supp. 748 p.751 874 F. Supp. 748 p.753

1334 Cited by: . City of New Orleans by & Through New Orleans Aviation Bd. v. Portion of Square 205 , 866 F. Supp. 969, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13092 (E.D. La. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

866 F. Supp. 969 p.971

1335 Cited by: . Page 184 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Sereno v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11936 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

1336 Cited by: . Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10337 (E.D. La. July 27, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

1337 Cited by: . Zamanian v. Christian Health Ministry, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10350 (E.D. La. July 21, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

1338 Cited by: . Metroplex Infusion Care v. Lone Star Container Corp., 855 F. Supp. 897, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12676 (N.D. Tex. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 , HN24{Positive}

855 F. Supp. 897 p.899

1339 Cited by: . Kemp v. Perma--Glaze, Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6918 (E.D. La. May 25, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

1340 Cited by: . Exxon Corp. v. Board of Educ., 849 F. Supp. 479, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4572, 128 Oil & Gas Rep. 279 (S.D. Miss. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Positive}

849 F. Supp. 479 p.488

1341 Cited by: . Luna v. Compania Panamena De Aviacion, S.A., 851 F. Supp. 826, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10935 (S.D. Tex. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN24{Caution}

851 F. Supp. 826 p.831

1342 Cited by: . Merchant v. Communication Workers, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 1994){Analysis}

145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627 p.2628 Page 185 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1343 Cited by: . Aguillard v. Chevron, U.S.A., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17432 (E.D. La. Dec. 3, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN25{Cited}

1344 Cited by: . Bonnette v. Shell Offshore, 838 F. Supp. 1175, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19747 (S.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

838 F. Supp. 1175 p.1180

1345 Cited by: . Lawson v. Louisiana Eye Ctr., P.C., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16991 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17

1346 Cited by: . Merchant v. Communications Workers of Am., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16085 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

1347 Cited by: . Gavin N. Sherwood Chiropractic Clinic, A.P.C. v. Brower, 838 F. Supp. 274, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16683 (M.D. La. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Caution}

838 F. Supp. 274 p.275

1348 Cited by: . Cook--Fort Worth Children's Medical Ctr. v. Wal--MartAssocs. Group Health Plan, 823 F. Supp. 418, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8189 (N.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN18, HN25{Cited}

823 F. Supp. 418 p.419

1349 Cited by: . Campos v. Housland, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 100, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7628 (S.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20{Caution}

824 F. Supp. 100 p.101

1350 Cited by: . Page 186 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

In re Taxable Mun. Bonds Litig., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6890 (E.D. La. May 10, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24, HN25{Positive}

1351 Cited by: . Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co., 818 F. Supp. 1013, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5665, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21271 (S.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Caution}

818 F. Supp. 1013 p.1016

1352 Cited by: . Lambert v. Kenner, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4294, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27130, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1961 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1993){Analysis}

26 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1961 p.1963

1353 Cited by: . Grynberg Prod. Corp. v. British Gas, P.L.C., 817 F. Supp. 1338, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3649 (E.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN24, HN25{Caution}

817 F. Supp. 1338 p.1353 817 F. Supp. 1338 p.1362 817 F. Supp. 1338 p.1363

1354 Explained by, Cited by: . Brown v. Crop Hail Management, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 519, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1688 (S.D. Tex. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

Explained by: 813 F. Supp. 519 p.522 813 F. Supp. 519 p.523 Cited by: 813 F. Supp. 519 p.522

1355 Followed by: . Collins v. AAA Rent All, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 642, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1773 (M.D. La. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

812 F. Supp. 642 p.643

1356 Cited by: . Breaux v. Pipeﬁtters Local Union 195, 807 F. Supp. 42, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17770 (E.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited} Page 187 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1357 Cited by: . Macera v. Hose Specialty & Supply Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16535 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN20

1358 Followed by: . NGS Am., Inc. v. Barnes, 805 F. Supp. 462, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17080, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2863 (W.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Positive}

805 F. Supp. 462 p.464

1359 Cited by: . Almanza v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 802 F. Supp. 1474, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19920 (N.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Questioned}

802 F. Supp. 1474 p.1477

1360 Cited by: . Rogers v. Lewer Agency, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14859 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25, HN29

1361 Cited by: . Rodriguez v. Texas Health Enterprises, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14788, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2819 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 1992)

15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2819 p.2820

1362 Cited by: . Flynn v. Pan American Life Ins. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11755 (E.D. La. July 29, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1363 Cited by: . Longoria v. Cearley, 796 F. Supp. 997, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9298, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2199 (W.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

796 F. Supp. 997 p.1001

1364 Cited by: . Page 188 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Pointer v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 791 F. Supp. 164, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7674, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1652 (S.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN18{Cited}

791 F. Supp. 164 p.166

1365 Distinguished by, Followed by: . Texas v. National Council of Allied Employees, 791 F. Supp. 1154, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6238, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2210 (W.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 , HN19, HN20, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN26, HN28, HN29{Cited}

Distinguished by: 791 F. Supp. 1154 p.1156 Followed by: 791 F. Supp. 1154 p.1155

1366 Cited by: . Eddy v. Inland Bay Drilling & Workover, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 370, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1679 (S.D. Tex. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Cited}

784 F. Supp. 370 p.373

1367 Cited by: . Laubach v. Howard Trucking Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1209 (E.D. La. Feb. 4, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

1368 Cited by: . New Orleans by New Orleans Aviation Bd. v. Kenner, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1046 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

1369 Cited by: . Stewart v. American Airlines, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 1194, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15678 (S.D. Tex. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Caution}

776 F. Supp. 1194 p.1196

1370 Cited by: . Nowoc v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 772 F. Supp. 977, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18223 (S.D. Tex. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

772 F. Supp. 977 p.978 Page 189 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1371 Cited by: . Smoothie King Home of Muscle Punch Franchises, Inc. v. Clearview Smoothie, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10951 (E.D. La. July 29, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN29

1372 Cited by: . Barcelona v. Sea Victory Maritime, 1992 A.M.C. 369 (E.D. La. 1991){Cited}

1992 A.M.C. 369 p.371 1992 A.M.C. 369 p.374

1373 Cited by: . Rheams v. Bankston, Wright & Greenhill, 756 F. Supp. 1004, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7035 (W.D. Tex. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

756 F. Supp. 1004 p.1008

1374 Cited by: . Atkins v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 444, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 467 (E.D. La. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12{Caution}

761 F. Supp. 444 p.445

1375 Cited by: . Rosette v. Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18362 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1376 Cited by: . Thomas v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17337 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

1377 Cited by: . Zoila--Ortego v. B J--Titan Services Co., 751 F. Supp. 633, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16218, 1991 A.M.C. 1205 (E.D. La. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18 {Positive}

751 F. Supp. 633 p.635

1378 Cited by: . Page 190 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 750 F. Supp. 766, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412 (E.D. La. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Warning}

750 F. Supp. 766 p.772

1379 Cited by: . Fogleman v. Tidewater Barges, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 348, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11448 (E.D. La. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

747 F. Supp. 348 p.351

1380 Cited by: . Johnson v. National Maritime Union, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363 (E.D. La. July 24, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

1381 Cited by: . Belgian American Inv. & Trade, Inc. v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 462, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9685 (N.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 {Positive}

717 F. Supp. 462 p.464

1382 Cited by: . Collin County v. Homeowners Ass'n for Values Essential to Neighborhoods, 716 F. Supp. 953, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7335, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20489 (N.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

716 F. Supp. 953 p.961 716 F. Supp. 953 p.962

1383 Distinguished by: . Owens v. First City Nat'l Bank, 714 F. Supp. 227, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6487 (E.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

714 F. Supp. 227 p.229

1384 Cited by: . Garg v. Narron, 710 F. Supp. 1116, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4878, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 878 (S.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

1385 Cited by: . Page 191 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Shepherd Financial Corp. v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 709 F. Supp. 735, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3569 (N.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Analysis}

1386 Cited by: . Wallace v. Ryan--Walsh Stevedoring Co., 708 F. Supp. 144, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2422 (E.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

708 F. Supp. 144 p.149 708 F. Supp. 144 p.150

1387 Followed by, Cited by: . Harvey Industries, Inc. v. International Union of Electronic, etc., 715 F. Supp. 171, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6663, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2063, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11862 (E.D. Tex. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24{Cited}

Followed by: 715 F. Supp. 171 p.173 Cited by: 715 F. Supp. 171 p.174

1388 Cited by: . Karp v. Fair Store, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 737, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16047, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39217, 49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1548 (E.D. Tex. 1988){Positive}

709 F. Supp. 737 p.737

1389 Cited by: . Rollo v. Maxicare of Louisiana, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 245, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10462 (E.D. La. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

695 F. Supp. 245 p.247

1390 Followed by, Cited by: . Boone v. Du Bose, 718 F. Supp. 479, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16653, 30 Env'tRep. Cas. (BNA) 1574 (M.D. La. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN24, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 718 F. Supp. 479 p.483 Cited by: 718 F. Supp. 479 p.482 Page 192 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1391 Cited by: . Texas v. Insurance Services Ofﬁce, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 601, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13123, 1988--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P68314 (W.D. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 , HN24, HN25{Cited}

699 F. Supp. 601 p.604

1392 Cited by: . Gemcraft Homes, Inc. v. Sumurdy, 688 F. Supp. 289, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9504, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26337, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1514 (E.D. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN20, HN24, HN25{Positive}

688 F. Supp. 289 p.291 688 F. Supp. 289 p.294

1393 Cited by: . Taylor v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New York, 684 F. Supp. 1352, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2445, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1757 (E.D. La. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

684 F. Supp. 1352 p.1356

1394 Explained by: . Ryan--Walsh Stevedoring Co. v. Cormier, 675 F. Supp. 337, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11640 (E.D. La. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

675 F. Supp. 337 p.340

1395 Cited by: . Grifﬁs v. Gulf Coast Pre--Stress, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10604 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

1396 Cited by: . Income Sec. Corp. v. Louisiana Oilﬁeld Contractors Ass'n, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13998, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1701 (W.D. La. Sept. 28, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

1397 Cited by: . H.C.A. Health Services, Inc. v. Blue Cross Ins. Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8534(E.D. La. Sept. 14, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited} Page 193 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1398 Cited by: . Fortunato v. Iolab Corp., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13493 (E.D. La. July 15, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1399 Cited by: . Filho v. Pozos International Drilling Services, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 94, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5159 (S.D. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

662 F. Supp. 94 p.97

1400 Cited by: . Rose v. Intelogic Trace, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 1328, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4999 (W.D. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

652 F. Supp. 1328 p.1330

1401 Cited by: . Missouri P. R. Co. v. Railroad Com. of Texas, 653 F. Supp. 617, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1412 (W.D. Tex. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

653 F. Supp. 617 p.621

1402 Cited by: . Willy v. Coastal Corp., 647 F. Supp. 116, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17842, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55679 (S.D. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Warning}

647 F. Supp. 116 p.119

1403 Cited by: . Walker v. Ideco, 646 F. Supp. 940, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18775, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 254, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2339 (E.D. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

646 F. Supp. 940 p.942

1404 Cited by: . Broadway v. San Antonio Shoe, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 584, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20311 (S.D. Tex. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20{Questioned}

643 F. Supp. 584 p.585 Page 194 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1405 Cited by: . PENNZOIL PRODUCING CO. v. UNITED GAS PIPELINE CO., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20760 (E.D. La. Sept. 5, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25

1406 Cited by: . Coody v. Exxon Corp., 630 F. Supp. 202, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28656, 1987 A.M.C. 390 (M.D. La. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

630 F. Supp. 202 p.204

1407 Cited by: . Tindle v. Ledbetter, 627 F. Supp. 406, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30694, 1986--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P67092 (M.D. La. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 {Positive}

627 F. Supp. 406 p.407

1408 Cited by: . Holcomb v. ERA Helicopters, 618 F. Supp. 339, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15701, 1988 A.M.C. 911 (W.D. La. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9{Caution}

618 F. Supp. 339 p.341

1409 Cited by: . Reid v. Walsh, 620 F. Supp. 930, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15742 (M.D. La. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Caution}

620 F. Supp. 930 p.934

1410 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Cox Cable New Orleans, Inc. v. New Orleans, 594 F. Supp. 1452, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23014, 57 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1201 (E.D. La. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

Distinguished by: 594 F. Supp. 1452 p.1457 Cited by: 594 F. Supp. 1452 p.1459 594 F. Supp. 1452 p.1460

1411 Cited by: . McGehee v. Nix, 581 F. Supp. 634, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18816 (M.D. La. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17{Cited} Page 195 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

581 F. Supp. 634 p.637

1412 Cited by: . Quinn v. IRS, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19072, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1176, 84--1U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9337 (E.D. La. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Cited}

1413 Cited by: . UNION NATL. BANK OF LAREDO v. NELSON, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12652 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17

5TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

1414 Cited by: . In re Komet, 93 B.R. 498, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1996, 19 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1231 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Warning}

93 B.R. 498 p.500 6TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

1415 Cited by: . Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3530, 2006 FED App. 64P (6th Cir.), 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42293, 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1, 152 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60139 (6th Cir. Ohio 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Positive}

438 F.3d 544 p.550

1416 Cited by: . Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 435 F.3d 666, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1849, 2006 FED App. 39P (6th Cir.), 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 712 (6th Cir. Ohio 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Warning}

435 F.3d 666 p.671

1417 Followed by: . Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2417, 2006 FED App. 40P (6th Cir.), 58 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (CBC) 694 (6th Cir. Ohio 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Analysis}

435 F.3d 560 p.570 Page 196 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1418 Cited by: . Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 535 (6th Cir. Ohio Jan. 9, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Analysis}

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 535

1419 Cited by: . Palkow v. CSX Transp., Inc., 431 F.3d 543, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24839, 2005 FED App. 447P (6th Cir.), 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42163, 96 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1740 (6th Cir. Ohio 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

431 F.3d 543 p.552

1420 Cited by: . Bartholomew v. Town of Collierville, 409 F.3d 684, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8329, 2005 FED App. 210P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN9{Positive}

409 F.3d 684 p.687

1421 Followed by: . Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26258, 2004 FED App. 436P (6th Cir.), 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1748, 60 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 542, 176 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2266, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59936 (6th Cir. Mich. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

392 F.3d 195 p.203

1422 Cited by: . AmSouth Bank v. Dale, 386 F.3d 763, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19551, 2004 FED App. 321P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

386 F.3d 763 p.775

1423 Cited by: . COB Clearinghouse Corp. v. Aetna United States Healthcare, Inc., 362 F.3d 877, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6393, 2004 FED App. 97P (6th Cir.), 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1779 (6th Cir. Ohio 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

362 F.3d 877 p.881

1424 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Page 197 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

B&B Trucking, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 363 F.3d 404, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6334, 2004 FED App. 96P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Warning}

363 F.3d 404 p.424

1425 Cited by: . Loftis v. UPS, 342 F.3d 509, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17744, 2003 FED App. 306P (6th Cir.), 173 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2079, 148 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59776 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Positive}

342 F.3d 509 p.515

1426 Cited by: . Heydon v. MediaOne of Southeast Mich., Inc., 327 F.3d 466, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8122, 2003 FED App. 128P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

327 F.3d 466 p.471

1427 Cited by: . XL Sports, Ltd. v. Lawler, 49 Fed. Appx. 13, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21168 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

49 Fed. Appx. 13 p.18

1428 Cited by: . Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass'n, 287 F.3d 568, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7474, 2002 FED App. 141P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

287 F.3d 568 p.573

1429 Cited by: . Kurincic v. Stein, Inc., 30 Fed. Appx. 420, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

30 Fed. Appx. 420 p.426

1430 Cited by: . NGS Am., Inc. v. Jefferson, 218 F.3d 519, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15521, 2000 FED App. 0216P (6th Cir.), 2000 FED App. 216P (6th Cir.), 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1971 (6th Cir. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

218 F.3d 519 p.529 Page 198 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1431 Cited by: . Youseff v. Ford Motor Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14080 (6th Cir. Ohio June 6, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14080

1432 Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: . Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 432, 2000 FED App. 0018P (6th Cir.), 2000 FED App. 18P (6th Cir.), 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1658, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58824 (6th Cir. Ky. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 201 F.3d 754 p.762 Cited by: 201 F.3d 754 p.759

1433 Cited by: . Neary v. Columbus Metro, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20626 (6th Cir. Ohio Aug. 25, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20626

1434 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . American Fed'n of TV & Radio Artists v. WJBK--TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 443, 1999 FED App. 0015P (6th Cir.), 1999 FED App. 15P (6th Cir.), 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2193 (6th Cir. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25 {Positive}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 164 F.3d 1004 p.1011 Cited by: 164 F.3d 1004 p.1007

1435 Cited by: . Marriott Mgmt. Servs. Corp. v. School Emples. Retirement Sys., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 16888 (6th Cir. Ohio July 17, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 , HN24{Analysis}

1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 16888

1436 Cited by: . Lattin v. Kurdziel, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10769 (6th Cir. Mich. May 26, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Analysis} Page 199 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10769

1437 Cited by: . Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7468, 1998 FED App. 116P (6th Cir.), 1998 FED App. 0116P (6th Cir.), 41 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 58 (6th Cir. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Caution}

142 F.3d 279 p.287

1438 Cited by: . Rhoden v. Metro Homes, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 30119 (6th Cir. Tenn. Oct. 24, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

1439 Cited by: . Collins v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 103 F.3d 35, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33110, 1996 FED App. 392P (6th Cir.), 1996 FED App. 0392P (6th Cir.), 3 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P3--149,6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 227, 19 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1187 (6th Cir. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

103 F.3d 35 p.36

1440 Cited by: . Sable v. GMC, 90 F.3d 171, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18169, 1996 FED App. 0231P (6th Cir.), 1996 FED App. 231P (6th Cir.), 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21585 (6th Cir. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

90 F.3d 171 p.174

1441 Cited by: . Musson Theatrical v. Federal Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17689, 1996 FED App. 0224P (6th Cir.), 1996 FED App. 224P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10{Caution}

89 F.3d 1244 p.1252

1442 Cited by: . Mink v. General Motors Corp., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 37027 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Analysis}

1443 Cited by: . Page 200 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bullitt County Fiscal Court v. Newsome, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18085 (6th Cir. Ky. June 21, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN12, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

1444 Cited by: . Warner v. Ford Motor Co., 46 F.3d 531, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2181, 1995 FED App. 0045P (6th Cir.), 1995 FED App. 45P (6th Cir.), 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2847, 66 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1680 (6th Cir. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

46 F.3d 531 p.534

1445 Cited by: . Ford v. Hamilton Inv., 29 F.3d 255, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 17256, 1994 FED App. 0243P (6th Cir.), 1994 FED App. 243P (6th Cir.), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98321 (6th Cir. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

29 F.3d 255 p.258

1446 Cited by: . Tisdale v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipeﬁtting Indus. Local 704 , 25 F.3d 1308, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 13868, 1994 FED App. 198P (6th Cir.), 1994 FED App. 0198P (6th Cir.), 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P43278, 64 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1785, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2615, 128 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11165 (6th Cir. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

25 F.3d 1308 p.1310

1447 Cited by: . Adkins v. Excel College, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7435 (6th Cir. Ky. Apr. 11, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17{Analysis}

1448 Cited by: . Alexander v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 107, 1994 FED App. 2P (6th Cir.), 1994 FED App. 0002P (6th Cir.), 1 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P1--075,2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1726, 63 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42829, 17 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2134 (6th Cir. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN12, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

13 F.3d 940 p.943 13 F.3d 940 p.944

1449 Explained by, Cited by: . Page 201 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Thiokol Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4049, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1698, 25 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 261 (6th Cir. Mich. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Explained by: 987 F.2d 376 p.378 Cited by: 987 F.2d 376 p.380

1450 Cited by: . Balas v. Leishman--Donaldson, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 22411 (6th Cir. Ohio Sept. 9, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10{Analysis}

1451 Cited by: . Ryberg v. Indoor Soccer Club, Inc., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18520 (6th Cir. Ohio July 31, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1452 Cited by: . State ex rel. Crotteau v. Chattanooga Women's Clinic, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12064 (6th Cir. May 18, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN19, HN22, HN29 {Cited}

1453 Cited by: . Van Camp v. AT&T Info. Sys., 963 F.2d 119, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 8523, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41445, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1366, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1124 (6th Cir. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Warning}

963 F.2d 119 p.122

1454 Cited by: . Adkins v. General Motors Corp., 946 F.2d 1201, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 24449, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2609, 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10988 (6th Cir. Ohio 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

946 F.2d 1201 p.1207

1455 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Cromwell v. Equicor--EquitableHCA Corp., 944 F.2d 1272, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21334, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1235 (6th Cir. Ohio 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18, HN24{Caution}

944 F.2d 1272 p.1280 Page 202 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1456 Cited by: . Robinson v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19164, 20 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1971, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P73720, 24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 49, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1145 (6th Cir. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

918 F.2d 579 p.585

1457 Cited by: . Fox v. Parker Hanniﬁn Corp., 914 F.2d 795, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16542, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1329, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2527, 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10303 (6th Cir. Ohio 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

914 F.2d 795 p.799

1458 Cited by: . Welch v. GMC, Buick Motor Div., 922 F.2d 287, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15550, 3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 553, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40467, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2609 (6th Cir. Mich. 1990){Caution}

922 F.2d 287 p.291

1459 Cited by: . Mantey, Mon Ami, Lonz Wineries, Inc. v. Buckantz, 902 F.2d 1569, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 8560 (6th Cir. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

1460 Followed by: . Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1643, 104 A.L.R. Fed. 157 (6th Cir. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

895 F.2d 1131 p.1133

1461 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Milan Express Co. v. Western Surety Co., 886 F.2d 783, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14170 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 886 F.2d 783 p.789 Cited by: 886 F.2d 783 p.786 Page 203 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1462 Cited by: . Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Detroit Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund, 883 F.2d 76, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12089 (6th Cir. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Warning}

1463 Cited by: . Smolarek v. Chrysler Corp., 879 F.2d 1326, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9963, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39139, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1848, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 976, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3022 (6th Cir. Mich. 1989){Caution}

879 F.2d 1326 p.1330

1464 Cited by: . Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Province of Ontario v. Detroit, 874 F.2d 332, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5877, 29 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1864, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20888 (6th Cir. Mich. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

874 F.2d 332 p.339

1465 Cited by: . Federal Nat'l Mortg. Asso. v. Le Crone, 868 F.2d 190, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2055 (6th Cir. Ohio 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

868 F.2d 190 p.194

1466 Superseded by statute as stated in: . Morda v. Klein, 865 F.2d 782, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 343 (6th Cir. Mich. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Caution}

1467 Superseded by statute as stated in: . Chivas Products, Ltd. v. Owen, 864 F.2d 1280, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17582 (6th Cir. Mich. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN20{Questioned}

1468 Cited by: . Miller v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 834 F.2d 556, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15490, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3241, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10267 (6th Cir. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

834 F.2d 556 p.563 834 F.2d 556 p.564 Page 204 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1469 Cited by: . Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indem. Co., 795 F.2d 538, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26593 (6th Cir. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Caution}

795 F.2d 538 p.544

1470 Cited by: . Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 794 F.2d 221, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26417 (6th Cir. Ohio 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

794 F.2d 221 p.228 794 F.2d 221 p.233 794 F.2d 221 p.234

1471 Explained by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: . Saramar Aluminum Co. v. Pension Plan for Employees of Aluminium Industry & Allied Industries, 782 F.2d 577, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21484, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1052 (6th Cir. Ohio 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

Explained by: 782 F.2d 577 p.584 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 782 F.2d 577 p.584 Cited by: 782 F.2d 577 p.582

1472 Cited by: . Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 766 F.2d 1005, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20507 (6th Cir. Ohio 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN20 {Caution}

766 F.2d 1005 p.1006

1473 Cited by: . Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 763 F.2d 216, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 19750, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1027 (6th Cir. Mich. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Warning}

763 F.2d 216 p.219

1474 Cited by: . Bell & Beckwith v. United States, IRS, 766 F.2d 910, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30267, 56 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6232, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 96, 85--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9813 (6th Cir. Ohio 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Caution} Page 205 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

766 F.2d 910 p.913

1475 Cited by: . Authier v. Ginsberg, 757 F.2d 796, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29847, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1420 (6th Cir. Mich. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

757 F.2d 796 p.799

1476 Followed by, Cited by: . Saginaw v. Service Employees International Union, Local 446--M, 720 F.2d 459, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15582, 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3144 (6th Cir. Mich. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 720 F.2d 459 p.461 Cited by: 720 F.2d 459 p.462 6TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

1477 Cited by: . Baraga Tel. Co. v. Am. Cellular Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46983 (W.D. Mich. July 12, 2006)

1478 Cited by: . Hall v. Miller, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41860 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41860

1479 Cited by: . Smith v. Corum, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36955 (E.D. Ky. June 2, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36955

1480 Cited by: . Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Meadow Preserve York, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30645 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9 , HN10

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30645

1481 Cited by: . Page 206 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bhandari v. Unison Behavioral Health Group, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15838 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15838

1482 Cited by: . Steadman v. Dalton, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41976 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Caution}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41976

1483 Cited by: . Fisher v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 422 F. Supp. 2d 889, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17035 (S.D. Ohio 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

422 F. Supp. 2d 889 p.893

1484 Cited by: . Fisher v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13832 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Warning}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13832

1485 Cited by: . Rackley v. City of Cincinnati, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12831 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12831

1486 Cited by: . Anderson v. Burgess, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17384 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17384

1487 Cited by: . Home Loan Ctr. v. Thompkins, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17058 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17058

1488 Cited by: . Page 207 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Queen v. Dobson Power Line Const. Co., 414 F. Supp. 2d 676, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4540 (E.D. Ky. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

414 F. Supp. 2d 676 p.678

1489 Cited by: . Leisure Kraft Pontunes, Inc. v. Moeller Marine Prods., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29136 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 9, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019

1490 Cited by: . Harvey v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 404 F. Supp. 2d 969, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32880, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2662 (E.D. Ky. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

404 F. Supp. 2d 969 p.973

1491 Cited by: . Pettis v. Econ. Linen & Towel Serv., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28903 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 10, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28903

1492 Followed by: . Taylor--Sammonsv. Bath, 398 F. Supp. 2d 868, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28111, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1762 (S.D. Ohio 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

398 F. Supp. 2d 868 p.872

1493 Cited by: . Taylor v. Currie, 386 F. Supp. 2d 929, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20257 ( E.D. Mich. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

386 F. Supp. 2d 929 p.934

1494 Cited by: . Sheridan v. New Vista, L.L.C., 406 F. Supp. 2d 789, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22637, 2005--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50572 (W.D. Mich. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

406 F. Supp. 2d 789 p.792 Page 208 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1495 Cited by: . Phillips v. S. Graphic Sys., 380 F. Supp. 2d 827, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15951, 178 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2587 (W.D. Ky. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Cited}

380 F. Supp. 2d 827 p.829

1496 Cited by: . Adamasu v. Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37769 ( E.D. Mich. July 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37769

1497 Cited by: . Gupta v. Avanta Orthopaedics, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14728 (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14728

1498 Cited by: . Adamasu v. Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C., 409 F. Supp. 2d 788, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13310 ( E.D. Mich. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24, HN25{Warning}

409 F. Supp. 2d 788 p.791

1499 Cited by: . Belperio v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11012 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11012

1500 Cited by: . FDIC v. Flagship Auto Ctr., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9468 (N.D. Ohio May 13, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9468

1501 Cited by: . Hughes v. May Dep't Stores Co., 368 F. Supp. 2d 793, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12908 ( E.D. Mich. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

368 F. Supp. 2d 793 p.798 Page 209 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1502 Followed by: . Walker v. City of Collegedale, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27698 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27698

1503 Cited by: . Bhandari v. Unison Behavioral Health Group, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 2d 818, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21575, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1535 (N.D. Ohio 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

338 F. Supp. 2d 818 p.820

1504 Cited by: . Palkow v. CSX Transp., Inc., 331 F. Supp. 2d 594, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16865 (N.D. Ohio 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Warning}

331 F. Supp. 2d 594 p.597

1505 Followed by, Cited by: . Williams v. Del Monte Fresh Produce Co., 325 F. Supp. 2d 855, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13331, 2005--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74770 (M.D. Tenn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

Followed by: 325 F. Supp. 2d 855 p.858 Cited by: 325 F. Supp. 2d 855 p.857

1506 Followed by: . Coker v. Purdue Pharma Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 777, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6988, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2332, 2004--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74400 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

314 F. Supp. 2d 777 p.781

1507 Distinguished by: . Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund v. Chellgren, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6066, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92830 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17 {Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6066

1508 Cited by: . Page 210 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Lawrence v. Dixon Ticonderoga Co., 305 F. Supp. 2d 806, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2863 (N.D. Ohio 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10{Cited}

305 F. Supp. 2d 806 p.810

1509 Cited by: . JSJ Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2349 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2349

1510 Followed by, Cited by: . Carlisle Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Hynolds LLC, 303 F. Supp. 2d 873, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2032 (N.D. Ohio 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN16, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

Followed by: 303 F. Supp. 2d 873 p.877 Cited by: 303 F. Supp. 2d 873 p.875

1511 Cited by: . Hudgins Moving & Storage Co. v. Am. Express Co., 292 F. Supp. 2d 991, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21005, 2004--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74302 (M.D. Tenn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

292 F. Supp. 2d 991 p.1002

1512 Cited by: . Elfelt v. United States, 289 F. Supp. 2d 881, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19732, 92 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6941 ( E.D. Mich. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

289 F. Supp. 2d 881 p.884

1513 Cited by: . Levy v. Chandler, 287 F. Supp. 2d 831, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20423 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29 {Analysis}

287 F. Supp. 2d 831 p.833

1514 Cited by: . Levy v. Chandler, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18454, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1941 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Analysis} Page 211 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18454

1515 Cited by: . Cavette v. Mastercard Int'l, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 2d 813, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16680 (W.D. Tenn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

282 F. Supp. 2d 813 p.816

1516 Cited by: . Solomon v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26068 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26068

1517 Cited by: . Hancock v. Bank of Am., 272 F. Supp. 2d 608, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12036 (W.D. Ky. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24{Positive}

272 F. Supp. 2d 608 p.610

1518 Cited by: . Bourke v. Carnahan, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13399 (S.D. Ohio July 1, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13399

1519 Cited by: . First Tenn. Bank v. Dale, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26076 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25, HN28{Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26076

1520 Cited by: . Johnson v. Delphi Corp., 261 F. Supp. 2d 955, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6660 (S.D. Ohio 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

261 F. Supp. 2d 955 p.960

1521 Cited by: . Route 62 Video & Books, Inc. v. City of Alliance, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25247 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25247 Page 212 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1522 Cited by: . Lessard v. City of Allen Park, 247 F. Supp. 2d 843, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2672 ( E.D. Mich. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

247 F. Supp. 2d 843 p.854

1523 Cited by: . Fillmore v. Brush Wellman, 243 F. Supp. 2d 758, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1888 (N.D. Ohio 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

243 F. Supp. 2d 758 p.761

1524 Followed by: . Weir v. Palmer, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1737 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1737

1525 Cited by: . Neick v. City of Beavercreek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 773, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5836 (S.D. Ohio 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

255 F. Supp. 2d 773 p.776

1526 Cited by: . Ackerman v. Fortis Beneﬁts Ins. Co., 254 F. Supp. 2d 792, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12348 (S.D. Ohio 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

254 F. Supp. 2d 792 p.814

1527 Cited by: . Miller v. PPG Indus., 237 F. Supp. 2d 756, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23910, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2115 (W.D. Ky. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

237 F. Supp. 2d 756 p.759

1528 Cited by: . Zerod v. Caprathe, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23619 ( E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23619 Page 213 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1529 Cited by: . Strong v. Print U.S.A., Ltd., 230 F. Supp. 2d 798, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22654, 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 909 (N.D. Ohio 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Positive}

230 F. Supp. 2d 798 p.799

1530 Followed by, Cited by: . Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 227 F. Supp. 2d 838, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20048 (S.D. Ohio 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN15, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 227 F. Supp. 2d 838 p.859 Cited by: 227 F. Supp. 2d 838 p.853

1531 Cited by: . Farmer v. Chattanooga --Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26891 (E.D. Tenn. July 9, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26891

1532 Cited by: . Henderson v. City of Chattanooga, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26339, 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2163 (E.D. Tenn. June 11, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26339

1533 Cited by: . Sylvester v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17989 (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17989

1534 Cited by: . Scaccia v. Lemmie, 236 F. Supp. 2d 830, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22277 (S.D. Ohio 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

236 F. Supp. 2d 830 p.837

1535 Cited by: . Mitchell v. Lemmie, 231 F. Supp. 2d 693, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22515 (S.D. Ohio 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited} Page 214 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

231 F. Supp. 2d 693 p.699

1536 Cited by: . Knox v. Roy Jorgensen Assocs., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8927 ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8927

1537 Cited by: . Gobble v. Hellman, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26833 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26833

1538 Cited by: . Bogusz v. MPW Container Mgmt. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3887 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3887

1539 Cited by: . Stratoti v. Kroger Co., 184 F. Supp. 2d 718, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5175, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10033 (S.D. Ohio 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

184 F. Supp. 2d 718 p.720

1540 Cited by: . Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1190, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2003 ( E.D. Mich. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 {Positive}

181 F. Supp. 2d 731 p.734

1541 Cited by: . Majeske v. Bay City Bd. of Educ., 177 F. Supp. 2d 666, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21500 ( E.D. Mich. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

177 F. Supp. 2d 666 p.670

1542 Cited by: . Page 215 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Marshall v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 174 F. Supp. 2d 709, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22789 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Cited}

174 F. Supp. 2d 709 p.717

1543 Cited by: . Strategic Assets, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23258 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 {Positive}

190 F. Supp. 2d 1065 p.1068

1544 Cited by: . City of Tipp City v. City of Dayton, 204 F.R.D. 388, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23016 (S.D. Ohio 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

204 F.R.D. 388 p.395

1545 Cited by: . Simon v. GM, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16516 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16516

1546 Cited by: . Columbiana County Port Auth. v. Boardman Twp. Park Dist., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16032 (N.D. Ohio June 20, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16032

1547 Cited by: . Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communs. Co., L.P., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6067, 2001--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73375 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 {Warning}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6067

1548 Cited by: . Carpenter v. CNA, Continental Cas., Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25264 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25264 Page 216 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1549 Cited by: . McIntire v. Ford Motor Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d 911, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5628 (S.D. Ohio 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Positive}

142 F. Supp. 2d 911 p.922

1550 Cited by: . Bryan v. Michigan Funeral Dir. Ass'n, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 580 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 580

1551 Cited by: . Enoch v. Cont'l Gen. Tire, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21795 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 26, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21795

1552 Cited by: . Southeastern Mich. Rooﬁng Contrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. C. Davis Rooﬁng, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 402, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17994, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10856 ( E.D. Mich. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

123 F. Supp. 2d 402 p.406

1553 Cited by: . Farkas v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14136 (W.D. Ky. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

113 F. Supp. 2d 1107 p.1110

1554 Cited by: . Duran v. AT&T Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21814, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2456 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN23{Analysis}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21814

1555 Cited by: . Litchﬁeld v. UPS, 136 F. Supp. 2d 756, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20257 (S.D. Ohio 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

136 F. Supp. 2d 756 p.758 Page 217 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1556 Cited by: . Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26--Riverbend,Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 871, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11412 (N.D. Ohio 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN25 {Caution}

107 F. Supp. 2d 871 p.874

1557 Cited by: . Technical Rubber Co. v. Buckeye Egg Farm, L.P., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8602 (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8602

1558 Cited by: . Burns v. Prudential Sec., 116 F. Supp. 2d 917, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13204 (N.D. Ohio 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

116 F. Supp. 2d 917 p.919

1559 Cited by: . McNamara v. Arms Tech., Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 720, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16764 ( E.D. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

71 F. Supp. 2d 720 p.722

1560 Cited by: . In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 90 F. Supp. 2d 819, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20698 ( E.D. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

90 F. Supp. 2d 819 p.838

1561 Cited by: . Greer v. Federal Express, 66 F. Supp. 2d 870, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15642 (W.D. Ky. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN22, HN25{Positive}

66 F. Supp. 2d 870 p.872

1562 Cited by: . Rievley v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15566 (E.D. Tenn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN20 , HN22, HN24, HN29{Caution}

69 F. Supp. 2d 1028 p.1031 Page 218 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1563 Cited by: . Toledo Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos., 61 F. Supp. 2d 681, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13208 (N.D. Ohio 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Analysis}

61 F. Supp. 2d 681 p.682

1564 Cited by: . Neighbors Concerned About Yacht Club Expansion v. Grosse Pointe Yacht Club, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8646 ( E.D. Mich. May 26, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8646

1565 Cited by: . VanDenBroeck v. ContiMortgage Corp., 53 F. Supp. 2d 965, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9104 (W.D. Mich. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

53 F. Supp. 2d 965 p.967 53 F. Supp. 2d 965 p.968 53 F. Supp. 2d 965 p.969

1566 Cited by: . Greer v. Chrysler Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2557 ( E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19379 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2557 p.2559

1567 Cited by: . Hanks v. GMC, 26 F. Supp. 2d 977, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18095, 22 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2154, 22 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 72155 ( E.D. Mich. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

26 F. Supp. 2d 977 p.980

1568 Cited by: . Norvell v. 20th Century Heating & Cooling, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15035 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN28, HN29

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15035 Page 219 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1569 Cited by: . Portage County Bd. of Comm'rs v. City of Akron, 12 F. Supp. 2d 693, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11781 (N.D. Ohio 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN24 {Cited}

12 F. Supp. 2d 693 p.698

1570 Cited by: . Corporate Hous. Sys. v. Cable & Wireless, 12 F. Supp. 2d 688, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10746 (N.D. Ohio 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11 , HN17{Positive}

12 F. Supp. 2d 688 p.690

1571 Cited by: . Anderson v. Holmes, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8055 ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8055

1572 Followed by: . Reedy v. Philips Elecs., NV, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22982 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 18, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22982

1573 Cited by: . WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 997 F. Supp. 946, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3336 (M.D. Tenn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 , HN24{Positive}

997 F. Supp. 946 p.954

1574 Cited by: . Carr v. Countrymark Cooperative, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23000 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23000

1575 Followed by, Cited by: . C.C. Mid West v. McDougall, 990 F. Supp. 914, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 473, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2590 ( E.D. Mich. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: Page 220 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

990 F. Supp. 914 p.917 Cited by: 990 F. Supp. 914 p.922 990 F. Supp. 914 p.923

1576 Cited by: . Dobberowsky v. Cryogenic Transp., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 848, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21145, 137 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58536 ( E.D. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Cited}

989 F. Supp. 848 p.851

1577 Cited by: . Hoffman v. Stump, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15740 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17

1578 Cited by: . Switzer v. Hayes Wheels Int'l, 976 F. Supp. 692, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14020 ( E.D. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

976 F. Supp. 692 p.695

1579 Cited by: . Butts v. Guardian Indus. Corp, 981 F. Supp. 1062, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17338 (N.D. Ohio 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10{Cited}

981 F. Supp. 1062 p.1064

1580 Cited by: . Tyree v. Burlington N. R.R., 973 F. Supp. 786, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17797 (W.D. Tenn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Cited}

973 F. Supp. 786 p.789

1581 Cited by: . Brune v. Toyota Tech. Ctr. U.S.A., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6908 ( E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN17, HN25

1582 Cited by: . Haber v. Chrysler Corp., 958 F. Supp. 321, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4176, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2600 ( E.D. Mich. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12 {Questioned} Page 221 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

958 F. Supp. 321 p.327

1583 Cited by: . University of Tenn. William F. Bowld Hosp. v. Wal--MartStores, 951 F. Supp. 724, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20882 (W.D. Tenn. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Caution}

951 F. Supp. 724 p.728

1584 Cited by: . Busacca v. Excavating, Bldg. Material & Constr. Drivers Union Local 436, 953 F. Supp. 867, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20540 (N.D. Ohio 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

953 F. Supp. 867 p.871 953 F. Supp. 867 p.872

1585 Cited by: . Knestrick v. IBM, 945 F. Supp. 1080, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17583, 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44589, 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 969 ( E.D. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

945 F. Supp. 1080 p.1081

1586 Cited by: . Danis Indus. Corp. v. Fernald Envtl. Restoration Mgmt. Corp., 947 F. Supp. 323, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17300 (S.D. Ohio 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

947 F. Supp. 323 p.327

1587 Cited by: . Duke v. Browning--Ferris Indus., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20769 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN18, HN24{Cited}

1588 Cited by: . Wright v. Bond--Air, Ltd., 930 F. Supp. 300, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9935 ( E.D. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

930 F. Supp. 300 p.302

1589 Cited by: . Baldwin v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 927 F. Supp. 1046, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7520 (M.D. Tenn. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN10, HN17{Caution} Page 222 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

927 F. Supp. 1046 p.1053

1590 Cited by: . Great Lakes Bancorp v. Holbrock, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4668 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 29, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

1591 Cited by: . Salei v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 913 F. Supp. 993, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 739 ( E.D. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11{Caution}

913 F. Supp. 993 p.1013

1592 Cited by: . Moll v. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers, 911 F. Supp. 269, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 616 ( E.D. Mich. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

911 F. Supp. 269 p.271

1593 Cited by: . Willett v. General Motors Corp., 904 F. Supp. 612, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17668, 69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 928, 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2409 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

904 F. Supp. 612 p.614

1594 Cited by: . Fayetteville Perry Local Sch. Dist. v. Reckers, 892 F. Supp. 193, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9446, 11 Am. Disabilities Dec. 1274 (S.D. Ohio 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN9, HN11{Caution}

892 F. Supp. 193 p.197

1595 Cited by: . Hyzer v. Cigna Property Casualty Ins. Co., 884 F. Supp. 1146, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6716 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

884 F. Supp. 1146 p.1148 884 F. Supp. 1146 p.1149

1596 Cited by: . Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7460 (W.D. Mich. May 8, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 Page 223 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1597 Cited by: . Sears v. Chrysler Corp., 884 F. Supp. 1125, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5919, 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58020 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 {Cited}

884 F. Supp. 1125 p.1128

1598 Cited by: . Barnett v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8775 ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Cited}

1599 Cited by: . Passalacqua Corp. v. Restaurant Management II, 885 F. Supp. 154, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6970 ( E.D. Mich. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

885 F. Supp. 154 p.156

1600 Cited by: . Farm Credit Servs. of Mid Am. v. Rudy, Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22178 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1601 Cited by: . Kentucky ex rel. Gorman v. Comcast Cable, 881 F. Supp. 285, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3919, 78 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1161 (W.D. Ky. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN18, HN22, HN25{Caution}

881 F. Supp. 285 p.287

1602 Cited by: . MacQueen v. Oakwood Health Servs., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19020 ( E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1603 Cited by: . Zimmer v. AT&T, 947 F. Supp. 302, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21018, 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2725 ( E.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

947 F. Supp. 302 p.306

1604 Cited by: . Page 224 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Porter v. General Motors Corp., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13529 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29

1605 Cited by: . Jolliffe v. Enterprise Rent--a--Car, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12428, 130 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57908 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

130 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57908

1606 Cited by: . Thiokol Corp. v. Roberts, 858 F. Supp. 674, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10544 (W.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

858 F. Supp. 674 p.676

1607 Cited by: . Vannette v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11086 (W.D. Mich. June 29, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

1608 Cited by: . Ploskunak v. Fritz Prods., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11843 ( E.D. Mich. June 3, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

1609 Cited by: . Gilford v. Detroit Edison Co., 846 F. Supp. 44, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4079, 17 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2645 ( E.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

846 F. Supp. 44 p.46

1610 Cited by: . Morris v. Ambassador Nursing Home, 845 F. Supp. 1164, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2284, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2622 ( E.D. Mich. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Caution}

845 F. Supp. 1164 p.1167 845 F. Supp. 1164 p.1169

1611 Cited by: . Page 225 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Leelanau Transit Co. v. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2220 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN17, HN18{Cited}

1612 Cited by: . Kuipers v. Heinz USA, Div. of H.J. Heinz Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13939 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Analysis}

1613 Cited by: . City of Reynoldsburg v. Browner, 834 F. Supp. 963, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18283, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20470 (S.D. Ohio 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

834 F. Supp. 963 p.967

1614 Cited by: . In re Air Disaster, 819 F. Supp. 1352, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4613 ( E.D. Mich. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

819 F. Supp. 1352 p.1356

1615 Cited by: . Crawford v. TRW, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 1028, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3131, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2034, 126 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10872 ( E.D. Mich. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

815 F. Supp. 1028 p.1033

1616 Cited by: . Spears v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 436, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10875, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41815, 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1461, 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2382, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10609 ( E.D. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 {Caution}

798 F. Supp. 436 p.437

1617 Cited by: . Purk v. United States, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21240 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 1992) {Positive}

1618 Followed in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: . Page 226 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

D & F Corp. v. Board of Trustees of Pattern & Model Makers Ass'n etc., 795 F. Supp. 825, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6350, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1527 ( E.D. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

Followed in Concurring Opinion at: 795 F. Supp. 825 p.837 Cited by: 795 F. Supp. 825 p.827 795 F. Supp. 825 p.832

1619 Cited by: . Morris v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7349 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

1620 Cited by: . Kelley ex. rel. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources v. Nagel, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8053 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

1621 Cited by: . General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc. v. Mires, 788 F. Supp. 948, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4851 ( E.D. Mich. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Caution}

788 F. Supp. 948 p.950

1622 Cited by: . Brussow v. Lansing Community College, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19691 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN8, HN10, HN17, HN25

1623 Cited by: . Lovelace v. Prudential Ins. Co., 775 F. Supp. 228, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14983 (S.D. Ohio 1991){Caution}

775 F. Supp. 228 p.229

1624 Cited by: . BPS Clinical Lab. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16462 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29 {Caution}

1625 Cited by: . Page 227 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Seals v. Health & Welfare Plan for Employees & Dependents of Harbour, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18020 (M.D. Tenn. July 15, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

1626 Cited by: . Walker v. Hereiu Welfare Plan 145, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16450 ( E.D. Mich. June 28, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

1627 Cited by: . McDaniel v. General Motors Corp., 765 F. Supp. 407, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57218 (W.D. Mich. 1991){Analysis}

124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57218

1628 Cited by: . Edwards v. National Post Ofﬁce, etc., Local 304, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20990, 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2575 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2575 p.2577

1629 Cited by: . Gemmell v. Conrail, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7107 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

1630 Cited by: . Kanalos v. Graham, 759 F. Supp. 374, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3687 ( E.D. Mich. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

759 F. Supp. 374 p.375

1631 Cited by: . Commercial Sales Network v. Sadler--Cisar, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 756, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1314 (N.D. Ohio 1991){Analysis}

755 F. Supp. 756 p.758 755 F. Supp. 756 p.759

1632 Cited by: . Schafer v. Banc One Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18452, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1440 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN18, HN24 {Cited} Page 228 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1633 Cited by: . Briggs v. General Motors Corp., 754 F. Supp. 107, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17150, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10778 (W.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Caution}

754 F. Supp. 107 p.109

1634 Cited by: . Martin v. General Motors Corp., 753 F. Supp. 1347, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16883 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

753 F. Supp. 1347 p.1357

1635 Cited by: . Ackison v. Detroit Edison Co., 751 F. Supp. 1245, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18354 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

751 F. Supp. 1245 p.1247

1636 Cited by: . Auto--OwnersIns. Co. v. Michigan Carpenters' Health Care Fund, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13895 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17{Cited}

1637 Cited by: . Roy v. Ford Motor Co., 748 F. Supp. 492, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14112 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

748 F. Supp. 492 p.495

1638 Cited by: . Allstate Ins. Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 324 Health Care Plan, 742 F. Supp. 952, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11100 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

742 F. Supp. 952 p.954

1639 Cited by: . McDaniel v. General Motors Corp., 765 F. Supp. 407, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7408, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10690, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57218 (W.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

765 F. Supp. 407 p.409 Page 229 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

765 F. Supp. 407 p.410

1640 Cited by: . Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co. v. Michigan Carpenters' Health Care Fund, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3389 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17

1641 Cited by: . Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rospatch Corp. Employee Ben. Plan, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2996 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29

1642 Cited by: . Ball v. Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc., 130 F.R.D. 77, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468 (W.D. Mich. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17 , HN18{Positive}

130 F.R.D. 77 p.79

1643 Cited by: . Citizens Ins. Co. v. Haworth, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2373 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29

1644 Cited by: . Drennen v. General Motors Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20266 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

1645 Cited by: . Fleming v. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19802 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1646 Cited by: . Simmons v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18006 ( E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

1647 Cited by: . Lamson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 724 F. Supp. 511, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13620, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39907, 62 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697 (N.D. Ohio 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN10, HN17, HN18{Analysis} Page 230 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

724 F. Supp. 511 p.513

1648 Cited by: . Dunman v. Krystal Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17511 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29

1649 Cited by: . Complete Auto Transit v. Howe, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18092 ( E.D. Mich. Sept. 5, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1650 Cited by: . Jozeﬁak v. United States Postal Service, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18000 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN25

1651 Cited by: . Sargent v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., 713 F. Supp. 999, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5916, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39313, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1395, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2872, 113 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11526 ( E.D. Mich. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

713 F. Supp. 999 p.1012

1652 Cited by: . Sargent v. Teamsters, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1395 ( E.D. Mich. May 26, 1989){Cited}

56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1395 p.1405

1653 Cited by: . Cadillac Ins. Co. v. American Community Mut. Ins. Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17635 ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN29

1654 Cited by: . Bonnell v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17628, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56076 ( E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

1655 Cited by: . Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17763 ( E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis} Page 231 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1656 Cited by: . Purvis v. Shell Pipeline Corp., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17864 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11

1657 Cited by: . Purvis v. Shell Pipeline Corp., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17851 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11

1658 Cited by: . Mangiapane v. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 292, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17731, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11220 ( E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

1659 Cited by: . Strickland v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17885, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11470 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

1660 Cited by: . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Employee Ben. Admrs, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17831 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29

1661 Cited by: . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Employee Beneﬁt Admrs., Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17679 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29

1662 Cited by: . Auto Club Ins. Asso. v. Rapid Design Service, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16499 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29

1663 Cited by: . Gerbers v. Michigan--Wisconsin Transp. Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17680, 1988 O.S.H. Dec. (CCH) P28360 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17

1664 Cited by: . Page 232 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Federal Express Corp. v. Tennessee Public Service Com., 693 F. Supp. 598, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9055 (M.D. Tenn. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12 , HN16, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

1665 Cited by: . Petrie v. Hospital Employees Div. of Local #79 Service Employees Int'l Union, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17688 (W.D. Mich. July 25, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN25

1666 Criticized by, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: . Federal Express Corp. v. Tennessee Public Service Com., 693 F. Supp. 598, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9144 (M.D. Tenn. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN18{Warning}

Criticized by: 693 F. Supp. 598 p.616 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 693 F. Supp. 598 p.608 693 F. Supp. 598 p.610 693 F. Supp. 598 p.613 693 F. Supp. 598 p.614 693 F. Supp. 598 p.615 693 F. Supp. 598 p.616 Cited by: 693 F. Supp. 598 p.602 693 F. Supp. 598 p.603 693 F. Supp. 598 p.608

1667 Cited by: . Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11978, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38092 ( E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Analysis}

1668 Cited by: . Goluban v. Riverview Community School Dist., 678 F. Supp. 688, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2345 ( E.D. Mich. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Cited}

678 F. Supp. 688 p.688 678 F. Supp. 688 p.689

1669 Cited by: . Noyes v. Ford Motor Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15383, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1843 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited} Page 233 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1670 Cited by: . Grifﬁth v. Columbus Area Chapter of American Red Cross, 678 F. Supp. 182, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 997 (S.D. Ohio 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9 , HN10, HN18, HN25{Caution}

678 F. Supp. 182 p.184

1671 Cited by: . Adams v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15322 ( E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1672 Cited by: . Cunningham v. Dixon, 700 F. Supp. 20, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10711, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11859 (S.D. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Analysis}

700 F. Supp. 20 p.20

1673 Cited by: . Beahr v. Stroh Brewery Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15451 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

1674 Cited by: . Brown v. United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 892 , 682 F. Supp. 901, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13271, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3027, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11972 ( E.D. Mich. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

682 F. Supp. 901 p.903

1675 Cited by: . Evans v. Evans, 668 F. Supp. 639, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7860 (M.D. Tenn. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN24, HN25{Cited}

668 F. Supp. 639 p.643

1676 Cited by: . Central Trust Co. v. B & L Leasing, 669 F. Supp. 828, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8726 (S.D. Ohio 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

669 F. Supp. 828 p.830 Page 234 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1677 Cited by: . Gavie v. Stroh Brewery Co., 668 F. Supp. 608, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7500, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1838, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2318 ( E.D. Mich. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

668 F. Supp. 608 p.610

1678 Cited by: . Trombley v. Ford Motor Co., 666 F. Supp. 972, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7493, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1836, 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56971 ( E.D. Mich. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Cited}

666 F. Supp. 972 p.972

1679 Followed by: . Trombley v. Ford Motor Co., 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56971 ( E.D. Mich. July 22, 1987)

122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56971

1680 Cited by: . Wechsler v. General Motors Corp., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15776 ( E.D. Mich. July 16, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1681 Cited by: . Percia v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15688 ( E.D. Mich. July 13, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1682 Cited by: . VANCE v. WAGNER ELEC. DIV., COOPER INDUS., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14270 (S.D. Ohio June 19, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

1683 Cited by: . Lee v. General Motors Corp., 684 F. Supp. 163, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13543, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1407, 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2458, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11904 ( E.D. Mich. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17{Cited}

684 F. Supp. 163 p.164

1684 Distinguished by: . Page 235 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 439, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18742, 93 Oil & Gas Rep. 256 (W.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN18, HN20, HN25, HN28{Cited}

646 F. Supp. 439 p.441

1685 Cited by: . Nolte v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 651 F. Supp. 576, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21165, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37600, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1834, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11175 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

651 F. Supp. 576 p.577

1686 Cited by: . In re Long Distance Telecommunications Litigation, 640 F. Supp. 997, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22167, 61 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 161 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 {Analysis}

640 F. Supp. 997 p.999

1687 Cited by: . Turk v. General Motors Corp., 637 F. Supp. 739, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24338, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36912, 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 988, 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1832 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 {Analysis}

637 F. Supp. 739 p.740

1688 Cited by: . Swift v. Ford Motor Co., 637 F. Supp. 125, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24337 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

637 F. Supp. 125 p.126

1689 Cited by: . Northwest Industrial Credit Union v. Salisbury, 634 F. Supp. 191, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26225 (W.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Positive}

634 F. Supp. 191 p.193

1690 Cited by: . NORTHWEST INDUS. CREDIT UNION v. SALISBURY, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26227 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 Page 236 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1691 Cited by: . Allor v. Amicon Corp., 631 F. Supp. 326, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27730, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1246 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

631 F. Supp. 326 p.329 631 F. Supp. 326 p.330

1692 Explained by: . Welch v. General Motors Corp., 641 F. Supp. 80, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29781, 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 988, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2222 ( E.D. Mich. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

641 F. Supp. 80 p.81

1693 Cited by: . Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bodle, 645 F. Supp. 305, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20615, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1010 (N.D. Ohio 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN23, HN24, HN29{Warning}

645 F. Supp. 305 p.308 645 F. Supp. 305 p.309

1694 Followed by: . Bell v. Amcast Industrial Corp., 607 F. Supp. 486, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20655, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1472 (S.D. Ohio 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

607 F. Supp. 486 p.488 607 F. Supp. 486 p.489

1695 Cited by: . ANDERSON v. PEPSI--COLAMETRO. BOTTLING CO., 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22913 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

1696 Cited by: . Schaeffer v. General Motors Corp., 586 F. Supp. 870, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16293, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3275 ( E.D. Mich. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN18{Cited}

586 F. Supp. 870 p.872 586 F. Supp. 870 p.873 Page 237 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1697 Cited by: . Holden v. Heckler, 584 F. Supp. 463, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16340, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17130 (N.D. Ohio 1984){Caution}

584 F. Supp. 463 p.485

1698 Cited by: . Holden v. Heckler, 584 F. Supp. 463, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17130 (N.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15, HN17, HN18, HN20

1699 Cited by: . AB Volvo v. Eaton--Kenway, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 579, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18835, 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 674 (N.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN20{Cited}

582 F. Supp. 579 p.582

1700 Cited by: . Exquisito Services, Inc. v. Bartenders, Motel, etc. Local Union No. 222, 579 F. Supp. 873, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19889, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2777 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3{Positive}

579 F. Supp. 873 p.876

1701 Followed by, Cited by: . Adkins v. General Motors Corp., 578 F. Supp. 315, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20246, 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627 (S.D. Ohio 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN25{Warning}

Followed by: 578 F. Supp. 315 p.317 578 F. Supp. 315 p.318 Cited by: 578 F. Supp. 315 p.317 578 F. Supp. 315 p.319

1702 Cited by: . Williams v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 581 F. Supp. 791, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12650, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3003, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3094 (M.D. Tenn. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Positive}

581 F. Supp. 791 p.792

1703 Cited by: . Page 238 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Mann v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12676, 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2659 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 17, 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

1704 Followed by, Cited by: . Magic Chef, Inc. v. International Molders & Allied Workers Union, 581 F. Supp. 772, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14834, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3102 (E.D. Tenn. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

Followed by: 581 F. Supp. 772 p.776 Cited by: 581 F. Supp. 772 p.775 7TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

1705 Cited by: . Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP, 446 F.3d 712, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944 (7th Cir. Ill. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

446 F.3d 712 p.713

1706 Cited by: . Jaskolski v. Daniels, 427 F.3d 456, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22727 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN11, HN24{Positive}

427 F.3d 456 p.460

1707 Cited by: . Nelson v. Stewart, 422 F.3d 463, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18583, 45 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 68, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P80355, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1036, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3217, 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10531 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

422 F.3d 463 p.466

1708 Cited by: . Disher v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 419 F.3d 649, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17334, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93335 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

419 F.3d 649 p.654

1709 Cited by: . Page 239 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Baker v. Kingsley, 387 F.3d 649, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22343, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2486, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3196, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10415, 10 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 14 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

387 F.3d 649 p.657

1710 Cited by: . City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 384 F.3d 901, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20611 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

384 F.3d 901 p.904

1711 Cited by: . Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 373 F.3d 847, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13345, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92855 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004){Caution}

373 F.3d 847 p.848

1712 Cited by: . Tifft v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 366 F.3d 513, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 8241, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2938, 149 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10341 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

366 F.3d 513 p.516

1713 Cited by: . Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24454 (7th Cir. Ind. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

351 F.3d 294 p.298

1714 Cited by: . Teamsters Nat'l Auto. Transporters Indus. Negotiating Comm. v. Troha, 328 F.3d 325, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8066, 172 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2326, 149 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10261 (7th Cir. Wis. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

328 F.3d 325 p.328

1715 Followed by: . Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Sevilla, 324 F.3d 544, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6277, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1233 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

324 F.3d 544 p.549 Page 240 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1716 Cited by: . Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22029 (7th Cir. Ill. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

308 F.3d 785 p.790

1717 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: . Teamsters & Emplrs Welfare Trust v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix, 283 F.3d 877, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4367, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2025 (7th Cir. Ill. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

283 F.3d 877 p.887

1718 Cited by: . Int'l Armor & Limousine Co. v. Moloney Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25131, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1911 (7th Cir. Ill. 2001) {Caution}

272 F.3d 912 p.915

1719 Cited by: . Operating Eng'rs Local 139 Health Beneﬁt Fund v. Gustafson Constr. Corp., 258 F.3d 645, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 16070, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1799 (7th Cir. Wis. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

258 F.3d 645 p.655

1720 Cited by: . Transit Express, Inc. v. Ettinger, 246 F.3d 1018, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6173 (7th Cir. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Positive}

246 F.3d 1018 p.1023

1721 Cited by: . Lehmann v. Brown, 230 F.3d 916, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 25687, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1042 (7th Cir. Wis. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Positive}

230 F.3d 916 p.919

1722 Cited by: . State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Morderosian, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26865 (7th Cir. Ill. Oct. 13, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN18, HN24{Analysis} Page 241 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26865

1723 Cited by: . Ameritech Beneﬁt Plan Comm. v. Commun. Workers of Am., 220 F.3d 814, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 16043, 79 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40232, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2490, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 794 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18 {Positive}

220 F.3d 814 p.818

1724 Cited by: . Kimbro v. Pepsico, Inc., 215 F.3d 723, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12096, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2449 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16{Caution}

215 F.3d 723 p.724

1725 Followed by: . Northeast Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. v. Hoey Farina & Downes, 212 F.3d 1010, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10135, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2340, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10712 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

212 F.3d 1010 p.1014

1726 Cited by: . Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 205 F.3d 983, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3385, 19 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1185 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Questioned}

205 F.3d 983 p.985

1727 Cited by: . Shegog v. Board of Educ., 194 F.3d 836, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 25833, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1116, 139 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58779 (7th Cir. Ill. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Positive}

194 F.3d 836 p.838

1728 Cited by: . Darne v. Department of Revenue, 137 F.3d 484, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 2836, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2569 (7th Cir. Wis. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

137 F.3d 484 p.489 Page 242 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1729 Cited by: . Cahnmann v. Sprint Corp., 133 F.3d 484, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 118, 11 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 57 (7th Cir. Ill. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

133 F.3d 484 p.487

1730 Cited by: . In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22267, 1997--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P71904 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

123 F.3d 599 p.611

1731 Cited by: . Blackburn v. Sundstrand Corp., 115 F.3d 493, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13008, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1234 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Questioned}

115 F.3d 493 p.495

1732 Cited by: . Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7608 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25{Positive}

111 F.3d 1312 p.1316

1733 Cited by: . Welsh v. Excel Telcoms., 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 30003 (7th Cir. Ill. Nov. 13, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1734 Followed by, Cited by: . In re County Collector (Appeal of O'Brien), 96 F.3d 890, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24306 (7th Cir. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 , HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 96 F.3d 890 p.895 Cited by: 96 F.3d 890 p.896

1735 Cited by: . Minor v. Prudential Sec., 94 F.3d 1103, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23268, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9113 (7th Cir. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Caution} Page 243 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

94 F.3d 1103 p.1105

1736 Cited by: . Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, 88 F.3d 1482, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16358, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1580 (7th Cir. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29{Questioned}

88 F.3d 1482 p.1487 88 F.3d 1482 p.1488

1737 Cited by: . Rice v. Panchal, 65 F.3d 637, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25813, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1841 (7th Cir. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

65 F.3d 637 p.639 65 F.3d 637 p.641

1738 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . GNB Battery Technologies v. Gould, Inc., 65 F.3d 615, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25281, 41 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1289, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20047 (7th Cir. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

65 F.3d 615 p.629

1739 Cited by: . Harrell v. Turner, 61 F.3d 905, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16680 (7th Cir. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

1740 Followed by: . Ceres Terminals v. Industrial Comm'n, 53 F.3d 183, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9795, 1995 A.M.C. 2141 (7th Cir. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

53 F.3d 183 p.185

1741 Cited by: . Buckley Dement, Inc. v. Travelers Plan Adm'rs, 39 F.3d 784, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 31228, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2328 (7th Cir. Ill. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

39 F.3d 784 p.789

1742 Cited by: . Page 244 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Seinfeld v. Austen, 39 F.3d 761, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30993, 1994 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70778 (7th Cir. Ill. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Warning}

39 F.3d 761 p.763

1743 Cited by: . Fish v. Reliance Elec. Co., 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11545 (7th Cir. May 18, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Analysis}

1744 Cited by: . Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Demos, 18 F.3d 485, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 4405, 73 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 734, 73 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1542, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 661, 94 TNT 60--16(7th Cir. Ill. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

18 F.3d 485 p.488 18 F.3d 485 p.490

1745 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Spearman v. Exxon Coal USA, 16 F.3d 722, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2425, 9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 408 (7th Cir. Ill. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN25{Caution}

16 F.3d 722 p.731

1746 Cited by: . Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 2 F.3d 769, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 21658, 26 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1071 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

2 F.3d 769 p.775

1747 Cited by: . UIU Severance Pay Trust Fund v. Local Union No. 18--U, United Steelworkers of Am., 998 F.2d 509, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 17356, 17 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1085 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

998 F.2d 509 p.512

1748 Cited by: . Banks v. Secretary of Ind. Family & Social Servs. Admin., 997 F.2d 231, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 14205, 41 Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 418 (7th Cir. Ind. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17{Caution}

997 F.2d 231 p.237 Page 245 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1749 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 11513, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P13486 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

994 F.2d 364 p.372

1750 Cited by: . Doe v. Allied--Signal,Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2025 (7th Cir. Ind. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10{Questioned}

985 F.2d 908 p.912

1751 Followed by: . Napoleon Hardwoods, Inc. v. Professionally Designed Ben., Inc., 984 F.2d 821, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1269, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1637 (7th Cir. Ind. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

984 F.2d 821 p.822

1752 Cited by: . Shannon v. Shannon, 965 F.2d 542, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14455, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1241 (7th Cir. Wis. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17 , HN18{Caution}

965 F.2d 542 p.545

1753 Cited by: . In re Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 964 F.2d 706, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11278, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 854, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2425, 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10201 (7th Cir. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

964 F.2d 706 p.709

1754 Cited by: . Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 954 F.2d 434, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 650, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 879, 92--1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50071 (7th Cir. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

954 F.2d 434 p.438 954 F.2d 434 p.440

1755 Cited by: . Page 246 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 435, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1345 (7th Cir. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

953 F.2d 1073 p.1075

1756 Cited by: . Smith v. Colgate--Palmolive Co., 943 F.2d 764, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21962, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 449, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2481, 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10982 (7th Cir. Ind. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

943 F.2d 764 p.769 943 F.2d 764 p.770

1757 Cited by: . Smith v. Colgate--Palmolive Co., 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 449 (7th Cir. Ind. Sept. 18, 1991){Analysis}

7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 449 p.453

1758 Cited by: . Pettibone Corp. v. Easley, 935 F.2d 120, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12059, 21 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 1326, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P74033, 25 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1 (7th Cir. Ill. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

935 F.2d 120 p.122

1759 Cited by: . Kennedy v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 698, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1689, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1572, 133 A.L.R. Fed. 591 (7th Cir. Ill. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

924 F.2d 698 p.699

1760 Cited by: . Dillon v. Combs, 895 F.2d 1175, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2241 (7th Cir. Ind. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

895 F.2d 1175 p.1176

1761 Cited by: . Lister v. Stark, 890 F.2d 941, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2362 (7th Cir. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10 {Caution}

890 F.2d 941 p.943 Page 247 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1762 Cited by: . Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc., 889 F.2d 115, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16865, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2134 (7th Cir. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

889 F.2d 115 p.119

1763 Cited by: . Douglas v. American Information Technologies Corp., 877 F.2d 565, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9006, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 851, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2846, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11259 (7th Cir. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

877 F.2d 565 p.569

1764 Cited by: . Giardono v. Jones, 867 F.2d 409, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1499, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1913, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11003, 104 A.L.R. Fed. 597 (7th Cir. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

867 F.2d 409 p.413

1765 Cited by: . Connors v. Amax Coal Co., 858 F.2d 1226, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13964 (7th Cir. Ind. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

858 F.2d 1226 p.1230

1766 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Marozsan v. United States, 852 F.2d 1469, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10702 (7th Cir. Ind. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN11{Caution}

852 F.2d 1469 p.1491

1767 Cited by: . Kennedy v. Wright, 851 F.2d 963, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9638, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1467 (7th Cir. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

851 F.2d 963 p.969

1768 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 HN18{Positive}

827 F.2d 234 p.239 Page 248 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1769 Cited by: . Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, 823 F.2d 1031, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8080, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 353, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2855, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12447 (7th Cir. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Warning}

823 F.2d 1031 p.1037 823 F.2d 1031 p.1040

1770 Cited by: . Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 5059, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26092, 1987--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P67537, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1499 (7th Cir. Ind. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution}

816 F.2d 1191 p.1195

1771 Cited by: . Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 798 F.2d 1051, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28188, 1986--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P67252, 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 840 (7th Cir. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

798 F.2d 1051 p.1055 798 F.2d 1051 p.1059 798 F.2d 1051 p.1060

1772 Explained by: . Graf v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 790 F.2d 1341, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25260, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 908, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2549, 104 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11892, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 871 (7th Cir. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 {Warning}

790 F.2d 1341 p.1344

1773 Cited by: . Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Elefant, 790 F.2d 661, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25183, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1268 (7th Cir. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN11{Warning}

790 F.2d 661 p.667

1774 Followed by, Cited by: . Mitchell v. Pepsi--ColaBottlers, Inc., 772 F.2d 342, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23009, 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2350, 103 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11632 (7th Cir. Ill. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18, HN24{Positive} Page 249 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Followed by: 772 F.2d 342 p.344 772 F.2d 342 p.345 Cited by: 772 F.2d 342 p.344

1775 Cited by: . McIntyre v. Fallahay, 766 F.2d 1078, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20276 (7th Cir. Ind. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17, HN20{Positive}

766 F.2d 1078 p.1084

1776 Cited by: . Oglesby v. RCA Corp., 752 F.2d 272, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27574, 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2203, 102 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11304 (7th Cir. Ind. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25{Warning}

752 F.2d 272 p.276 752 F.2d 272 p.277

1777 Cited by: . Thomas v. Shelton, 740 F.2d 478, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20751 (7th Cir. Ind. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Questioned}

740 F.2d 478 p.482 740 F.2d 478 p.485

1778 Cited by: . Bernstein v. Lind--Waldock & Co., 738 F.2d 179, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21402, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 492 (7th Cir. Ill. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN10{Caution}

738 F.2d 179 p.183

1779 Cited by: . Coleman v. United States, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 715 F.2d 1156, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24692 (7th Cir. Ill. 1983){Analysis}

715 F.2d 1156 p.1161 7TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

1780 Cited by: . Adams v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47800 (S.D. Ind. July 7, 2006) Page 250 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1781 Cited by: . Duffy v. Duffy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36305 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36305

1782 Distinguished by, Followed by: . BorgWarner Diversiﬁed Transmission Prods. v. UAW, Local No. 287, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30101 (S.D. Ind. May 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29

Distinguished by: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30101 Followed by: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30101

1783 Cited by: . Cantrell v. White, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26237 (S.D. Ill. May 4, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26237

1784 Cited by: . Caparelli v. Exelon Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26235 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26235

1785 Cited by: . GH, L.L.C. v. Curtin, 422 F. Supp. 2d 994, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15365, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29163 (N.D. Ind. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

422 F. Supp. 2d 994 p.996

1786 Cited by: . Vazquez v. Cent. States Joint Bd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11355 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11355

1787 Cited by: . Samuel Trading, LLC v. Diversiﬁed Group, Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 885, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13928 (N.D. Ill. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25 {Cited}

420 F. Supp. 2d 885 p.889 Page 251 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1788 Cited by: . Ill. ex rel. Madigan v. Tarkowski, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 549 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 549

1789 Cited by: . Highland Supply Co. v. Klerk's Flexible Packaging, B.V., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38013 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38013

1790 Cited by: . Burns v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30429 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30429

1791 Cited by: . Wisconsin v. Abbott Labs., 390 F. Supp. 2d 815, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22013 (W.D. Wis. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

390 F. Supp. 2d 815 p.820

1792 Cited by: . Alwood v. Clark, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17733 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17733

1793 Explained by: . Quick v. Shell Oil Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23158 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23158

1794 Cited by: . Radtke v. Am. Fed'n. of State, County & Mun. Emples., 376 F. Supp. 2d 893, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18049 (E.D. Wis. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

376 F. Supp. 2d 893 p.907 Page 252 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1795 Cited by: . Ducham v. Reebie Allied Moving & Storage, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11080 (N.D. Ill. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18, HN25 {Cited}

372 F. Supp. 2d 1076 p.1078

1796 Cited by: . Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F. Supp. 2d 659, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6355, 56 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (CBC) 931 (N.D. Ill. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

393 F. Supp. 2d 659 p.673

1797 Cited by: . Schad v. Z--Tel Communs. Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 529 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 529

1798 Cited by: . Household Int'l, Inc. v. Simonds Indus., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25935 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25935

1799 Cited by: . Cortes v. Midway Games, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20795, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1845 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20795

1800 Cited by: . Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the United States v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19844 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN20{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19844

1801 Cited by: . Murphy v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19428, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1925 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29 Page 253 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19428

1802 Followed by: . City of New Albany v. New Albany DVD, LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14240 (S.D. Ind. July 22, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN24 , HN25{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14240

1803 Cited by: . Bowe Bell + Howell Co. v. IMMCO Emples. Ass'n, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10264 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10264

1804 Cited by: . Dixon v. Borgwarner Diversiﬁed Transmission Prods., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6278 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6278

1805 Cited by: . Richardson v. Cambridge Manor, L.L.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3180, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1123 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN27, HN28, HN29{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3180

1806 Cited by: . Vogeler v. Columbia Acorn Trust, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9182 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9182

1807 Cited by: . Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9181 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9181

1808 Cited by: . Parthasarthy v. T. Rowe Price Int'l Funds, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29804 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17{Analysis} Page 254 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29804

1809 Cited by: . Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10327 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Warning}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10327

1810 Cited by: . Franczyk v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 643 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 643

1811 Cited by: . Jenkins v. Bd. of Educ., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6936 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN25

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6936

1812 Cited by: . Husko v. Geary Elec., Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 787, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23122, 32 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1735 (N.D. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

314 F. Supp. 2d 787 p.789

1813 Cited by: . Budnik v. Bank of Am. Mortg., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22542 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22542

1814 Cited by: . Alport v. Sprint Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21755 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21755

1815 Cited by: . Sheridan v. Flynn, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17440 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17440 Page 255 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1816 Cited by: . ABN AMRO Sage Corp. v. PTI Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14375 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14375

1817 Cited by: . Barnes v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9268 (S.D. Ind. May 30, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9268

1818 Cited by: . City of Chi. v. AT&T Broadband, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6268 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6268

1819 Cited by: . Tires Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.), 256 F. Supp. 2d 884, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6225 (S.D. Ind. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

256 F. Supp. 2d 884 p.899

1820 Cited by: . Bland v. Fiatallis N. Am., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6075, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1727 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6075

1821 Cited by: . Lopez v. Smurﬁt--StoneContainer Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2180, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3170, 148 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10208 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2180

1822 Cited by: . Tifft v. Commonwealth Edison, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1131, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3106 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Positive} Page 256 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1131

1823 Cited by: . County, Mun. Emples. Supervisors & Foreman's Union Local No. 1001 v. Laborers' Pension Fund, 240 F. Supp. 2d 827, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 902, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1174 (N.D. Ill. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

240 F. Supp. 2d 827 p.830

1824 Cited by: . Flanders Diamond USA, Inc. v. Nat'l Diamond Syndicate, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23129, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1056 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2002){Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23129

1825 Cited by: . Dorazio v. UAL Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18809 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18809

1826 Cited by: . Isaac v. Seabury & Smith, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12413, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1525 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12413

1827 Cited by: . Constr. Consulting Group, Ltd. v. Gersten Fin. & Ins., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11669 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN17, HN18 {Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11669

1828 Cited by: . Nisbett v. Bridgestone Corp. (In re Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc. Tires Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Bridgestone Corp.) , 203 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10653, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P10284 (S.D. Ind. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Positive}

203 F. Supp. 2d 1032 p.1035

1829 Cited by: . Page 257 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Hudson v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11226, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P10285 (S.D. Ind. May 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11226

1830 Cited by: . Fournier v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 191 F. Supp. 2d 996, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2137 (N.D. Ill. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

191 F. Supp. 2d 996 p.1000

1831 Cited by: . Tjong Lie v. Boler Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2108, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28418, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2400 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN18

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2108

1832 Cited by: . Fedor v. Cingular Wireless Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18925 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN24{Warning}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18925

1833 Cited by: . Bailey v. Wal--MartStores, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16925, 144 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34391 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN18{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16925

1834 Cited by: . Snyder--Stulginskisv. United Air Lines, Inc, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11665 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24 {Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11665

1835 Cited by: . Estate of Coggins v. Wagner Hopkins Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 883, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15432, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1921, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1921 (W.D. Wis. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11{Caution}

174 F. Supp. 2d 883 p.887 Page 258 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1836 Cited by: . Berthold Types, Ltd. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 887, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11090 (N.D. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

155 F. Supp. 2d 887 p.891

1837 Cited by: . Rivera v. Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10751, 144 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59429 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10751

1838 Cited by: . Bell v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 236 F. Supp. 2d 882, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8813 (N.D. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Positive}

236 F. Supp. 2d 882 p.888 236 F. Supp. 2d 882 p.895

1839 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. McCray, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9417 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9417

1840 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Fortune, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9416 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9416

1841 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Roe, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9415 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9415

1842 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Hamilton, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9414 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9414 Page 259 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1843 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Roberto, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9413 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9413

1844 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Knode, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9412 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9412

1845 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Walther, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9411

1846 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Flores, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9410 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9410

1847 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Phillips, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9409 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9409

1848 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Boeh, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9408 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9408

1849 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Jackson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9407 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9407

1850 Cited by: . Page 260 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

GE Corp. v. Lopez, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9406 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9406

1851 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Roque, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9405 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9405

1852 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Stolfa, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9404 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9404

1853 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9403 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9403

1854 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Fornari, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9402 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9402

1855 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Smith, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9401 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9401

1856 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9400 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9400

1857 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Oliver, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9399 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis} Page 261 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9399

1858 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9398 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9398

1859 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9397 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9397

1860 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9396 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9396

1861 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Sims, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9395 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9395

1862 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Shidle, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9394 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9394

1863 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Shidle, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9393 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9393

1864 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Shidle, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9392 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9392 Page 262 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1865 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Barr, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9391 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9391

1866 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Bennett, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9390 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9390

1867 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Lopez, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9389 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9389

1868 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Hempﬂing, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9388 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9388

1869 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Herman, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9387 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9387

1870 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Haigh, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9386 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9386

1871 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Gordon--Allen, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9385 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9385

1872 Cited by: . Page 263 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

GE Corp. v. Falls, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9384 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9384

1873 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Dudley, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9383 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9383

1874 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Johnson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9382 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9382

1875 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Johnson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9381 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9381

1876 Cited by: . GE v. Jones, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9380 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9380

1877 Cited by: . GE v. Mosley, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9379 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9379

1878 Cited by: . GE v. Piette, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9378 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9378

1879 Cited by: . GE v. Stewart, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9377 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis} Page 264 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9377

1880 Cited by: . GE v. Whitehead, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9376 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9376

1881 Cited by: . GE v. Stewart, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9375 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9375

1882 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Vant, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9374 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9374

1883 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Vant, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373

1884 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Bonnin, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9372 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9372

1885 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Vant, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9371 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9371

1886 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Dowe, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9370 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9370 Page 265 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1887 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Bonnin, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9369 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9369

1888 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Whittaker, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368

1889 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Dowe, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9367 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9367

1890 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Stewart, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9366 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9366

1891 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Johnson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9365 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9365

1892 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Munson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9364 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9364

1893 Cited by: . GE Corp. v. Schaﬂe, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363

1894 Cited by: . Page 266 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

GE Corp. v. Adkins, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9362 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9362

1895 Cited by: . Bell v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686

1896 Cited by: . Doyle v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ill., 149 F. Supp. 2d 427, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7160, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2114 (N.D. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

149 F. Supp. 2d 427 p.431

1897 Cited by: . Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6913, 2001--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73323 (E.D. Wis. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

143 F. Supp. 2d 1044 p.1051

1898 Cited by: . Cent. States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Romito, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6004 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6004

1899 Cited by: . Sercye--McCollumv. Ravenswood Hosp. Med. Ctr., 140 F. Supp. 2d 944, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8584 (N.D. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Cited}

140 F. Supp. 2d 944 p.946

1900 Distinguished by, Followed by: . Bezy v. Floyd County Plan Comm'n, 199 F.R.D. 308, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2538 (S.D. Ind. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

Distinguished by: 199 F.R.D. 308 p.312 Followed by: Page 267 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

199 F.R.D. 308 p.311

1901 Cited by: . Fairﬁeld Mfg. Co. v. Hartman, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2967, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1471 (N.D. Ind. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

132 F. Supp. 2d 1142 p.1145

1902 Cited by: . Bebble v. National Air Trafﬁc Controllers' Ass'n, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1236, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2633 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3 , HN17, HN24{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1236

1903 Cited by: . Johnson v. Olin Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14469, 6 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 941 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14469

1904 Cited by: . Kaiser v. Cigna Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22660 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22660

1905 Cited by: . Kiest v. Kiest, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13556 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN24{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13556

1906 Cited by: . Clemons v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7866 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Analysis}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7866

1907 Cited by: . Chicago Steel & Crane, Inc. v. Structural Ironworkers Local No. 1, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6542 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution} Page 268 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6542

1908 Followed by: . Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Intercare Health Plans, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 727, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7664 (S.D. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Positive}

101 F. Supp. 2d 727 p.731

1909 Cited by: . Schumann v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5800, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10718 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5800 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10718

1910 Cited by: . City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d 947, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5077 (N.D. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN23{Warning}

94 F. Supp. 2d 947 p.949

1911 Cited by: . Transit Express, Inc. v. Ettinger, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5466 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5466

1912 Cited by: . Kittle v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 102 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6570, 165 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2039, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59135 (S.D. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

102 F. Supp. 2d 1029 p.1033

1913 Cited by: . Board of Educ. v. Rainbow/Push Coalition, 75 F. Supp. 2d 916, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18853 (C.D. Ill. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN17, HN18 {Cited}

75 F. Supp. 2d 916 p.918

1914 Cited by: . Page 269 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Illinois ex rel. Ryan v. Northbrook Sports Club, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18632 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18632

1915 Cited by: . Agrella v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18833 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18833

1916 Cited by: . Gallagher & Henry v. Chicago & Northeast Ill. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 73 F. Supp. 2d 954, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17284, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3020 (N.D. Ill. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

73 F. Supp. 2d 954 p.956

1917 Cited by: . Jubelirer v. Mastercard Int'l, 68 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15227, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9788 (W.D. Wis. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN29 {Positive}

68 F. Supp. 2d 1049 p.1054

1918 Cited by: . Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8320 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8320

1919 Cited by: . Moran v. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4075 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4075

1920 Cited by: . Scianna v. Furlong, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1000, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7418 (N.D. Ill. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

56 F. Supp. 2d 1000 p.1003 Page 270 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1921 Cited by: . O'Reilly v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3930 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

1922 Cited by: . Moran v. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9113 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9113

1923 Cited by: . Follett Corp. v. Willis, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7308 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15{Positive}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7308

1924 Cited by: . R.L. Sohol Carpenter Contrs. v. Perinar, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4018 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25 {Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4018

1925 Followed by: . Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, 176 F.R.D. 552, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19367 (E.D. Wis. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

176 F.R.D. 552 p.560

1926 Cited by: . Diamond v. United Food & Commer. Workers Union, Local 881, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16795, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2882 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25{Caution}

157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2882 p.2883

1927 Cited by: . Rosen v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16029 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Cited} Page 271 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1928 Cited by: . Daniels v. Potter, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11464 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

1929 Cited by: . Guidant Corp. v. St. Jude Medical, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8953 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 30, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Warning}

1930 Cited by: . Guardian Nat'l Acceptance Corp. v. Swartzlander Motors, 962 F. Supp. 1137, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6277 (N.D. Ind. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

962 F. Supp. 1137 p.1142

1931 Cited by: . Liberty Tel. Co v. Burke, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4888 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4888

1932 Cited by: . Sullivan v. Conway, 959 F. Supp. 877, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3349, 155 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2099 (N.D. Ill. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

959 F. Supp. 877 p.882

1933 Cited by: . Health Cost Controls v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2232(N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29

1934 Cited by: . Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal R.R. v. Wisconsin Cent., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1114 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Caution}

1935 Cited by: . Commonwealth Edison Co. v. IBEW, Local Union No. 15, 961 F. Supp. 1154, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19589 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN24{Caution} Page 272 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

961 F. Supp. 1154 p.1160

1936 Followed by: . S1 IL304 Ltd. Liab. Co. v. ANB Cust. for LG, 950 F. Supp. 242, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18501 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Analysis}

950 F. Supp. 242 p.246

1937 Cited by: . Garvey v. Rush Prudential HMO, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16383 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Cited}

1938 Cited by: . Buckeridge Door Co. v. Chicago & Northeast Ill. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 940 F. Supp. 1287, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14490, 154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2476 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Cited}

940 F. Supp. 1287 p.1289

1939 Cited by: . Illinois ex rel. Edgar v. City of Chicago, 942 F. Supp. 366, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14569 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

942 F. Supp. 366 p.371

1940 Cited by: . Pauley v. Ford Elecs. & Refrigeration Corp., 941 F. Supp. 794, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14696 (S.D. Ind. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29{Caution}

941 F. Supp. 794 p.798

1941 Cited by: . Fravel v. Stankus, 936 F. Supp. 474, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12733 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11{Questioned}

936 F. Supp. 474 p.476

1942 Cited by: . England v. Thermo Prods., 956 F. Supp. 1446, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21060, 154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2241 (N.D. Ind. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

956 F. Supp. 1446 p.1450 Page 273 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1943 Cited by: . Castellanos v. U.S. Long Distance Corp., 928 F. Supp. 753, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8483 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN29{Caution}

928 F. Supp. 753 p.755

1944 Cited by: . ADS Publ. Servs. v. Summit Group, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8297 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17{Caution}

1945 Cited by: . Musinski v. Staudacher, 928 F. Supp. 739, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8036 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Questioned}

928 F. Supp. 739 p.742

1946 Cited by: . Whitney v. IRS, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7440, 78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5472, 96--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50411 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Analysis}

78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5472 p.5474 96--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50411

1947 Cited by: . Walliser v. Brown, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5461 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17{Positive}

1948 Cited by: . Janes v. Centegra Health Sys., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5719 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25{Cited}

1949 Distinguished by: . Divane v. A & C Elec. Co., 193 B.R. 856, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3707 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN27, HN28, HN29{Caution}

193 B.R. 856 p.862 Page 274 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1950 Cited by: . Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Northern Trust Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3694 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

1951 Cited by: . Vorhees v. Brown, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3637 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

1952 Cited by: . Ready Transp. v. Best Foam Fabricators, 919 F. Supp. 310, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3018 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN25{Caution}

919 F. Supp. 310 p.312

1953 Cited by: . Roberts Distrib. v. Federal Express Corp., 917 F. Supp. 630, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2627 (S.D. Ind. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

917 F. Supp. 630 p.633

1954 Cited by: . Ashley v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. (In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litig.) , 918 F. Supp. 1181, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2402, 1996--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P71431 (N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

918 F. Supp. 1181 p.1184

1955 Cited by: . Bristol Oaks, L.P. v. Chapman, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1804 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

1956 Cited by: . Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1540 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

1957 Cited by: . Minor v. Prudential Sec., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19261, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9003 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 26, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Positive} Page 275 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1958 Cited by: . Sebring Homes Corp. v. T.R. Arnold & Assocs., 927 F. Supp. 1098, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20914 (N.D. Ind. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

927 F. Supp. 1098 p.1103

1959 Cited by: . State Oil Co. v. Alayoubi, 907 F. Supp. 1233, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18955 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

907 F. Supp. 1233 p.1234

1960 Cited by: . Webb v. Gibson, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18033 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25

1961 Cited by: . Sophie v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17823 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24{Caution}

1962 Explained by: . Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, 904 F. Supp. 912, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16868 (S.D. Ind. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

904 F. Supp. 912 p.914

1963 Cited by: . Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assocs., 904 F. Supp. 870, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16458, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2930, 2 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1684 (N.D. Ind. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

904 F. Supp. 870 p.874

1964 Cited by: . Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assocs., 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2930, 2 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1684 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 1995)

150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2930 p.2932 2 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1684 p.1686 Page 276 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1965 Cited by: . Johnson v. Bradberry, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14592 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

1966 Cited by: . Darne v. Wisconsin, 901 F. Supp. 1426, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14872 (E.D. Wis. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

901 F. Supp. 1426 p.1430

1967 Criticized by: . McQuerry v. American Medical Sys., 899 F. Supp. 366, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12028, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14375 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

899 F. Supp. 366 p.369

1968 Cited by: . Contract Cleaning Maintenance v. Marks, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11879 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN19, HN22, HN29{Analysis}

1969 Cited by: . Kusznir v. Lutheran Gen. Hosp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9351 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29 {Caution}

1970 Cited by: . Mays v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6990 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

1971 Cited by: . Goldstein v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 887 F. Supp. 168, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6935 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Positive}

887 F. Supp. 168 p.170

1972 Cited by: . Page 277 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Evans v. Keystone Consol. Indus., 884 F. Supp. 1209, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6348, 154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2901 (C.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

884 F. Supp. 1209 p.1213

1973 Explained by, Cited by: . Washington v. Humana Health Plan, 883 F. Supp. 264, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5460 (N.D. Ill. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

Explained by: 883 F. Supp. 264 p.269 Cited by: 883 F. Supp. 264 p.265

1974 Cited by: . Stein v. Rio Parismina Lodge, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5088 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN18

1975 Cited by: . McCarty v. Reynolds Metals Co., 883 F. Supp. 356, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5107 (S.D. Ind. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

883 F. Supp. 356 p.359 883 F. Supp. 356 p.360

1976 Cited by: . Trustmark Life Ins. Co. v. University of Chicago Hosps., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2105 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

1977 Cited by: . Civil City of S. Bend v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 880 F. Supp. 595, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3623 (N.D. Ind. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Positive}

880 F. Supp. 595 p.598

1978 Cited by: . Hammond v. Kunard, 889 F. Supp. 1084, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20627 (C.D. Ill. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN11, HN17{Caution}

889 F. Supp. 1084 p.1089 Page 278 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

1979 Cited by: . Gorrell v. Hartigan, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16590 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

1980 Cited by: . People ex rel. Burris v. Comcast Cable, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12802 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

1981 Cited by: . Henderson v. People, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12007 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 1994) {Analysis}

1982 Cited by: . Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Funds v. Neurobehavioral Assocs., P.A. , 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11507 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

1983 Cited by: . Henderson v. People, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11981 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

1984 Cited by: . Foliety v. Cervantes, 861 F. Supp. 63, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11831 (E.D. Wis. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Cited}

861 F. Supp. 63 p.64

1985 Cited by: . Empress River Casino Corp. v. Local Unions No. 9 & 176, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7822 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN12, HN17, HN22, HN24{Analysis}

1986 Cited by: . Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7167 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

1987 Cited by: . Page 279 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Powell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4772 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Cited}

1988 Cited by: . Spitz v. Berlin Indus., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1576 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

1989 Cited by: . Rehabilitation Inst. v. Group Adm'rs, 844 F. Supp. 1275, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9556 (N.D. Ill. 1994){Positive}

844 F. Supp. 1275 p.1283

1990 Cited by: . Weiser v. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 499 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN12, HN17, HN18 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29

1991 Cited by: . Nill v. Essex Group, 844 F. Supp. 1313, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2314 (N.D. Ind. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Positive}

844 F. Supp. 1313 p.1318

1992 Cited by: . Rehabilitation Inst. v. Group Adm'rs, 844 F. Supp. 1275, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18673 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Caution}

1993 Followed by, Cited by: . State Oil Co. v. Khan, 839 F. Supp. 543, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17344 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN16, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

Followed by: 839 F. Supp. 543 p.547 Cited by: 839 F. Supp. 543 p.545 839 F. Supp. 543 p.546 839 F. Supp. 543 p.548

1994 Cited by: . Page 280 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Anglin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15104 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN24{Caution}

1995 Cited by: . Madden v. Country Life Ins. Co., 835 F. Supp. 1081, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14712 (N.D. Ill. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

835 F. Supp. 1081 p.1085

1996 Cited by: . Abbott Lab. Derivative Litig., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12289 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

1997 Cited by: . Boatman v. Dilling Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1054 (N.D. Ind. July 27, 1993)

1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1054 p.1054 1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1054 p.1055

1998 Cited by: . Allen v. City of Chicago, 828 F. Supp. 543, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9279, 68 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 607 (N.D. Ill. 1993){Caution}

828 F. Supp. 543 p.563

1999 Cited by: . Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Doyle, 828 F. Supp. 1401, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9936 (W.D. Wis. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

828 F. Supp. 1401 p.1412

2000 Cited by: . Taylor v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 705 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2001 Cited by: . King v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19921 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited} Page 281 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 Cited by: . Engler v. Mann, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19828 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29

2003 Cited by: . Bromenn Healthcare v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 806 F. Supp. 799, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17652 (C.D. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN24{Cited}

806 F. Supp. 799 p.805

2004 Cited by: . Stemmons v. Toyota Tsusho America, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 195, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15460 (N.D. Ill. 1992){Positive}

802 F. Supp. 195 p.197

2005 Cited by: . Navarro v. Subaru of America Operations Corp., 802 F. Supp. 191, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15484 (N.D. Ill. 1992){Caution}

802 F. Supp. 191 p.193

2006 Cited by: . Hogan v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13557 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2007 Cited by: . Corporate Travel Consultants, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 58, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13063, 1992--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P70074 (N.D. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

799 F. Supp. 58 p.60

2008 Cited by: . Gegenhuber v. Hystopolis Productions, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10156 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN24{Cited}

2009 Cited by: . Illinois Psychiatric Hosp. Co. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9607 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17{Positive} Page 282 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2010 Cited by: . Wisconsin v. Missionaries to Preborn, 796 F. Supp. 389, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9096, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1250 (E.D. Wis. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN24{Analysis}

796 F. Supp. 389 p.390

2011 Cited by: . Parks v. McGrath, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5712 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

2012 Cited by: . Mendez v. Plastoﬁlm Industries, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN18, HN25{Cited}

2013 Cited by: . Holder v. New Horizon, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5717 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN16, HN17, HN24

2014 Explained by: . Carpenters Fringe Ben. Fund v. Bi--StateLoading Dock Specialists, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 1410, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12699 (S.D. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

790 F. Supp. 1410 p.1411

2015 Cited by: . Kinsella v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1405 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN16, HN24{Cited}

2016 Cited by: . Parkside Lutheran Hosp. v. R.J. Zeltner & Assoc., Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1293, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2804 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2804 p.2805

2017 Cited by: . Page 283 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Ore--IdaFoods, Inc. v. Richmond Transp. Services, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 382, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9370 (N.D. Ill. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Positive}

783 F. Supp. 382 p.385

2018 Cited by: . Valentini v. Practice Management Assoc., Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17974 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

2019 Cited by: . Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co., 764 F. Supp. 1289, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6965, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2272 (N.D. Ill. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

764 F. Supp. 1289 p.1295

2020 Cited by: . Pettit v. Conrail, 765 F. Supp. 508, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8383 (N.D. Ind. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

765 F. Supp. 508 p.509

2021 Cited by: . I.B.E.W. Local No. 1367 v. Commonwealth Edison, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5667(N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11

2022 Distinguished by: . Reynolds v. Stahr, 758 F. Supp. 1276, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3555 (W.D. Wis. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

758 F. Supp. 1276 p.1281

2023 Cited by: . Commissioner of Indiana Dep't of Environmental Management v. Terre Haute, B. & E. R., Inc., 761 F. Supp. 631, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11702 (S.D. Ind. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18

761 F. Supp. 631 p.632

2024 Cited by: . Page 284 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Smith v. Colgate--Palmolive Co., 752 F. Supp. 273, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16436, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1786, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3008, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10742 (S.D. Ind. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

752 F. Supp. 273 p.277

2025 Cited by: . Winstead v. J.C. Penney Co., 740 F. Supp. 1358, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8149, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2060 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

740 F. Supp. 1358 p.1362 740 F. Supp. 1358 p.1364

2026 Cited by: . Montgomery v. Franklin, 737 F. Supp. 57, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6488, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10382 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

737 F. Supp. 57 p.58

2027 Cited by: . Dartmouth Plan, Inc. v. Delgado, 736 F. Supp. 1489, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5063 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

736 F. Supp. 1489 p.1491

2028 Distinguished by: . Ft. Wayne Community Schools v. Ft. Wayne Educ. Ass'n, 735 F. Supp. 907, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5316 (N.D. Ind. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16 , HN25{Warning}

735 F. Supp. 907 p.910 735 F. Supp. 907 p.911

2029 Cited by: . Elliott v. Conrail, 732 F. Supp. 954, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3233, 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10103 (N.D. Ind. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

732 F. Supp. 954 p.956

2030 Cited by: . Klank v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F. Supp. 260, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2394 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

735 F. Supp. 260 p.262 Page 285 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2031 Cited by: . Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1195, 71A A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 3515, 90--1U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50176 (N.D. Ill. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

71A A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 3515 p.3518

2032 Cited by: . Brentwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Janes, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13848 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN28{Analysis}

2033 Followed by, Cited by: . Meyer v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 722 F. Supp. 547, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11222 (E.D. Wis. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

Followed by: 722 F. Supp. 547 p.549 722 F. Supp. 547 p.550 722 F. Supp. 547 p.551 Cited by: 722 F. Supp. 547 p.549

2034 Cited by: . Powell v. Green Hill Publishers, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 743, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10870, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26498, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1760 (N.D. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Cited}

719 F. Supp. 743 p.745

2035 Cited by: . Pfefferle v. Solomon, 718 F. Supp. 1413, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9973 (E.D. Wis. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Positive}

718 F. Supp. 1413 p.1416

2036 Followed by, Cited by: . In re Korhumel Industries, Inc., 103 B.R. 917, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8981 (N.D. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18 {Caution}

Followed by: 103 B.R. 917 p.921 103 B.R. 917 p.922 Page 286 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Cited by: 103 B.R. 917 p.921 103 B.R. 917 p.923

2037 Followed by, Explained by, Cited by: . Ready Metal Mfg. Co. v. International Union, United Auto., etc., 716 F. Supp. 336, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7233, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2332, 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10343 (N.D. Ill. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 716 F. Supp. 336 p.339 716 F. Supp. 336 p.341 Explained by: 716 F. Supp. 336 p.342 Cited by: 716 F. Supp. 336 p.340

2038 Cited by: . Richardson v. Chapman, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6703 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25

2039 Cited by: . Lockport Well & Pump, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 , 708 F. Supp. 178, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2096, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11374 (N.D. Ill. 1989){Cited}

708 F. Supp. 178 p.181

2040 Cited by: . Mid American Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13415 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN25{Analysis}

2041 Cited by: . Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund v. Uphoff, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10889 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

2042 Cited by: . Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund v. Uphoff, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7241 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN25, HN28{Analysis} Page 287 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2043 Cited by: . Merit Steel Co. v. International Asso. of Bridge, etc. Local 395, 684 F. Supp. 1007, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4467, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55967 (N.D. Ind. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Cited}

684 F. Supp. 1007 p.1009

2044 Cited by: . Hardymon v. Miller, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18381 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 7, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Analysis}

2045 Cited by: . HCA Health Services of Midwest, Inc. v. Catrambone, 682 F. Supp. 381, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2396 (N.D. Ill. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Analysis}

682 F. Supp. 381 p.382

2046 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Yangming Marine Transport Corp. v. Electri--Flex Co., 682 F. Supp. 368, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12387 (N.D. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18 , HN25{Caution}

Distinguished by: 682 F. Supp. 368 p.370 682 F. Supp. 368 p.373 Cited by: 682 F. Supp. 368 p.370 682 F. Supp. 368 p.372

2047 Cited by: . Valparaiso v. Iron Workers Local Union #395, 669 F. Supp. 912, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13961 (N.D. Ind. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

669 F. Supp. 912 p.915

2048 Cited by: . Wolst v. American Airlines, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 1117, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15084 (N.D. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

668 F. Supp. 1117 p.1119

2049 Cited by: . Lopez v. Ford Motor Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4815 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 Page 288 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2050 Cited by: . Klecki v. Coral, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4141 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2051 Cited by: . Crouse v. Creanza, 658 F. Supp. 1522, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3486 (W.D. Wis. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6{Positive}

658 F. Supp. 1522 p.1528

2052 Cited by: . In re Estate of Sheppard, 658 F. Supp. 729, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3601, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1795 (C.D. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

658 F. Supp. 729 p.733 658 F. Supp. 729 p.734 658 F. Supp. 729 p.735

2053 Cited by: . Zack Co. v. Howard, 658 F. Supp. 73, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1791 (N.D. Ill. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Cited}

658 F. Supp. 73 p.75

2054 Followed by: . First Nat'l Bank v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 649 F. Supp. 1577, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275 (W.D. Wis. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18 {Cited}

649 F. Supp. 1577 p.1580

2055 Cited by: . Martinez v. Triumph Industries Div. of Metal Source Corp., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 258 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Cited}

2056 Cited by: . GENERAL ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. LYKES BROS. S.S. CO., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18730 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN20 Page 289 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2057 Cited by: . CITY OF CHICAGO v. ARNOLD, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19230 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11{Cited}

2058 Cited by: . La Buhn v. Bulkmatic Transport Co., 644 F. Supp. 942, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19643, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2399 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN24, HN25{Questioned}

644 F. Supp. 942 p.944

2059 Cited by: . GUTHRIE v. CLARKLIFT WEST, INC., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20958 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2060 Cited by: . DEL CID v. WESTIN HOTELS, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24547 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2061 Cited by: . Orsini v. Echlin, Inc., 637 F. Supp. 38, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25719, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55879 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

637 F. Supp. 38 p.41

2062 Cited by: . Louisiana Chemical Equipment Co. v. Laborers International Union, Local No. 41 , 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27034, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3313 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 9, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

2063 Cited by: . ILLINOIS ex rel. ILLINOIS COMMER. COMMN. v. O'HARE WISCONSIN LIMOUSINE SERV., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27808 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

2064 Cited by: . Mitchell v. Health Care Service Corp., 633 F. Supp. 948, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27821 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Cited} Page 290 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

633 F. Supp. 948 p.948

2065 Cited by: . LOUISIANA CHEM. EQUIP. CO. v. LABORERS INTL. UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28021 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2066 Cited by: . Waycaster v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 1052, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28370, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1035, 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2885 (N.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN11, HN24, HN25{Caution}

636 F. Supp. 1052 p.1055 636 F. Supp. 1052 p.1056

2067 Cited by: . A & Z ENTERPRISES v. ILLINOIS ex rel. DALEY, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29017 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

2068 Explained by: . Federal Land Bank v. Keiser, 628 F. Supp. 769, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29262 (C.D. Ill. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

628 F. Supp. 769 p.773 628 F. Supp. 769 p.774

2069 Cited by: . Darras v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 215, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13903 (N.D. Ill. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6{Cited}

622 F. Supp. 215 p.216

2070 Cited by: . Gensplit Finance Corp. v. Foreign Credit Ins. Asso., 616 F. Supp. 1504, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16216 (E.D. Wis. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Caution}

616 F. Supp. 1504 p.1507

2071 Cited by: . Muenchow v. Parker Pen Co., 615 F. Supp. 1405, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16723, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10057 (W.D. Wis. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive} Page 291 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

615 F. Supp. 1405 p.1414 615 F. Supp. 1405 p.1417

2072 Cited by: . Sprague Iron Works v. Urbauer, 604 F. Supp. 733, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21762, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10044 (N.D. Ill. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 , HN25{Cited}

604 F. Supp. 733 p.735

2073 Explained by: . Cannon v. Loyola University of Chicago, 609 F. Supp. 1010, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22274 (N.D. Ill. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

609 F. Supp. 1010 p.1014

2074 Cited by: . National Metalcrafters, Div. of Keystone Consol. Industries v. McNeil, 602 F. Supp. 232, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23047, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1101, 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2815, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 896 (N.D. Ill. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

602 F. Supp. 232 p.237

2075 Cited by: . MITCHELL v. PEPSI--COLAGEN. BOTTLERS, INC., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22420 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2076 Cited by: . PICKENS v. NICOLET PAPER CO., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20196 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 23, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2077 Cited by: . Frye v. General Finance Corp., 35 B.R. 742, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11248 (N.D. Ill. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Cited}

35 B.R. 742 p.745 7TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

2078 Cited by: . Page 292 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Conseco, Inc. v. Adams (In re Conseco, Inc.), 318 B.R. 425, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1974, 44 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 20 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN11{Positive}

318 B.R. 425 p.429

2079 Cited by: . Dally v. Bank One, N.A. (In re Dally), 202 B.R. 724, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1665 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

202 B.R. 724 p.729 8TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2080 Cited by: . Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12032 (8th Cir. Minn. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

447 F.3d 606 p.611

2081 Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . King v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 414 F.3d 994, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14935, 35 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1518 (8th Cir. Minn. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 414 F.3d 994 p.1009 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 414 F.3d 994 p.1010 Cited by: 414 F.3d 994 p.998

2082 Followed by: . Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 407 F.3d 905, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7851 (8th Cir. Mo. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

407 F.3d 905 p.906

2083 Cited by: . Chapman v. LabOne, 390 F.3d 620, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24664, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1084, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10417 (8th Cir. Iowa 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25{Caution}

390 F.3d 620 p.629 Page 293 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2084 Cited by: . Gaming World Int'l v. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians, 317 F.3d 840, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1079, 186 A.L.R. Fed. 581 (8th Cir. Minn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN22{Caution}

317 F.3d 840 p.847

2085 Cited by: . Nichols v. Harbor Venture, Inc., 284 F.3d 857, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4558 (8th Cir. Mo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

284 F.3d 857 p.860

2086 Cited by: . Crews v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 274 F.3d 502, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26776, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1202, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 329 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

274 F.3d 502 p.504

2087 Cited by: . Casino Resource Corp. v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 243 F.3d 435, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3805 (8th Cir. Minn. 2001){Caution}

243 F.3d 435 p.440

2088 Cited by: . Lyons v. Philip Morris, Inc., 225 F.3d 909, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22377, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2781, 2000--02Trade Cas. (CCH) P73017, 2000--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73017 (8th Cir. Minn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Caution}

225 F.3d 909 p.912

2089 Cited by: . Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Nixon, 210 F.3d 814, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7345, 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P46355, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1080, 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1080 (8th Cir. Mo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Warning}

210 F.3d 814 p.816

2090 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Page 294 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Iowa Mgmt. & Consultants, Inc. v. Northern Sac & Fox Tribe, 207 F.3d 488, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637 (8th Cir. Iowa 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7 , HN9, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Analysis}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 207 F.3d 488 p.490 Cited by: 207 F.3d 488 p.489

2091 Cited by: . McNeill v. Franke, 171 F.3d 561, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3582 (8th Cir. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

171 F.3d 561 p.563 171 F.3d 561 p.564

2092 Cited by: . Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 62, 42 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1127 (8th Cir. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution}

164 F.3d 1102 p.1109

2093 Cited by: . Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12605 (8th Cir. S.D. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

147 F.3d 700 p.702

2094 Cited by: . NAACP v. Metropolitan Council, 144 F.3d 1168, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10712 (8th Cir. Minn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution}

144 F.3d 1168 p.1170

2095 Followed by, Cited by: . Magee v. Exxon Corp., 135 F.3d 599, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1804 (8th Cir. Ark. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

Followed by: 135 F.3d 599 p.602 Cited by: 135 F.3d 599 p.601

2096 Cited by: . Page 295 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Berger Levee Dist. v. United States, 128 F.3d 679, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29928 (8th Cir. Mo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

128 F.3d 679 p.681

2097 Followed by, Cited by: . Missouri ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Cufﬂey, 112 F.3d 1332, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10084 (8th Cir. Mo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN15, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 112 F.3d 1332 p.1336 Cited by: 112 F.3d 1332 p.1334 112 F.3d 1332 p.1335

2098 Cited by: . Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund v. Superior Gen. Contrs., 104 F.3d 1050, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 570, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2552 (8th Cir. Mo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

104 F.3d 1050 p.1058

2099 Cited by: . Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15326 (8th Cir. Minn. 1996){Caution}

88 F.3d 536 p.549

2100 Cited by: . Peters v. Union Pac. R.R., 80 F.3d 257, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6051 (8th Cir. Mo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

80 F.3d 257 p.260

2101 Cited by: . International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of Am. v. Angoff, 58 F.3d 1266, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074, 95 TNT 133--52(8th Cir. Mo. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

58 F.3d 1266 p.1270

2102 Cited by: . Page 296 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

McCallum v. Rosen's Diversiﬁed, 41 F.3d 1239, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34186, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2686 (8th Cir. Minn. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

41 F.3d 1239 p.1240

2103 Cited by: . Hurt v. Dow Chemical Co., 963 F.2d 1142, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10298, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21460 (8th Cir. Mo. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7 , HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Caution}

963 F.2d 1142 p.1144

2104 Cited by: . Reding v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 942 F.2d 1254, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19411 (8th Cir. Minn. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

942 F.2d 1254 p.1257

2105 Cited by: . Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., Div. of Ceco Corp., 926 F.2d 729, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797 (8th Cir. Ark. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

926 F.2d 729 p.730

2106 Cited by: . Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations v. Morts, 878 F.2d 1096, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9686, 1989 A.M.C. 2058 (8th Cir. Mo. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25{Warning}

878 F.2d 1096 p.1100

2107 Cited by: . Deford v. Soo Line R. Co., 867 F.2d 1080, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1384, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2625, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10928 (8th Cir. Minn. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

867 F.2d 1080 p.1084

2108 Cited by: . Federal S&L Ins. Corp. v. Capozzi, 855 F.2d 1319, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11574 (8th Cir. Mo. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

855 F.2d 1319 p.1324 Page 297 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2109 Explained by: . Department of Revenue v. Investment Finance Management Co., 831 F.2d 790, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14189 (8th Cir. Iowa 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18, HN20{Analysis}

831 F.2d 790 p.792

2110 Cited by: . Middle South Energy, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Com., 772 F.2d 404, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 22598, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92265 (8th Cir. Ark. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN14, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN24{Warning}

772 F.2d 404 p.409 772 F.2d 404 p.410

2111 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Independence v. Bond, 756 F.2d 615, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29762 (8th Cir. Mo. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

756 F.2d 615 p.619

2112 Cited by: . Leach v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 741 F.2d 200, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19347 (8th Cir. Ark. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

741 F.2d 200 p.201 8TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

2113 Cited by: . Van Natta v. Sara Lee Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44606 (N.D. Iowa June 29, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN19, HN20, HN22, HN24, HN29

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44606

2114 Cited by: . Regions Bank v. Crawford, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41041 (E.D. Mo. June 20, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41041

2115 Cited by: . City of Lincoln v. Lincoln Lumber Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34287 (D. Neb. May 23, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN24 Page 298 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34287

2116 Followed by: . State ex rel. Nixon v. Mylan Labs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32570 (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32570

2117 Cited by: . McCullough v. Ligon, 430 F. Supp. 2d 846, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29892 (E.D. Ark. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

430 F. Supp. 2d 846 p.850

2118 Cited by: . Redinger v. McCorkle, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27873 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 28, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27873

2119 Cited by: . Brodeur v. Swan Fin. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21792 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21792

2120 Cited by: . Curry v. Aervoe Indus., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11736 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 3, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11736

2121 Cited by: . Hinton v. Landmark Dodge, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10453 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10453

2122 Cited by: . Geiler v. Jones, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9231, 37 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1018 (D. Neb. Feb. 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9231 Page 299 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2123 Followed by: . City of Beatrice v. Aquila, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20772 (D. Neb. Jan. 25, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20772

2124 Cited by: . Cycenas v. United States Bank, N.A., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3632 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3632

2125 Cited by: . Clark v. Ameritas Inv. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 819, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39441, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2252 (D. Neb. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

408 F. Supp. 2d 819 p.826

2126 Cited by: . Attorney's Process & Investigation Servs. v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 401 F. Supp. 2d 952, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28296 (N.D. Iowa 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

401 F. Supp. 2d 952 p.957

2127 Cited by: . New Century Health Quality Alliance, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24723 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24723

2128 Cited by: . Glisson v. Occupational Health Ctrs. of Ark., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38886 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38886

2129 Cited by: . Becnel v. KPMG LLP, 387 F. Supp. 2d 984, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17905, 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6376, 2005-- 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50573 (W.D. Ark. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution} Page 300 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

387 F. Supp. 2d 984 p.986

2130 Cited by: . Sullivan v. City of Dexter, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3916 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3916

2131 Cited by: . Iowa Ass'n of Bus. & Indus. v. EFCO Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2382 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 15, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2382

2132 Cited by: . Johnson v. Parker Hughes Clinics, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 741 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 741

2133 Cited by: . Hintze v. Pioneer Hi--Bred Int'l, 347 F. Supp. 2d 677, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26332, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2758 (S.D. Iowa 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Cited}

347 F. Supp. 2d 677 p.681

2134 Followed by: . Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18007 (E.D. Mo. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

334 F. Supp. 2d 1151 p.1154

2135 Cited by: . ONeill v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15203, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17103 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15203

2136 Followed by: . Phillips v. AT&T Wireless, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (S.D. Iowa July 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Positive} Page 301 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544

2137 Cited by: . Kanyi v. Ashcroft, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14450 (D. Minn. July 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN25{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14450

2138 Cited by: . Howell v. Grant Holding, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9400 (D. Minn. May 12, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN24{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9400

2139 Followed by: . Arnold v. First Greensboro Home Equity, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15020 (E.D. Mo. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Cited}

327 F. Supp. 2d 1022 p.1025

2140 Cited by: . Murphy v. Health, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12080 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 23, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12080

2141 Followed by: . Allende v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26918 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26918

2142 Cited by: . Bellevue State Bank v. Hueneke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 8, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210

2143 Cited by: . McNerny v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4642 (D. Neb. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Cited} Page 302 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

309 F. Supp. 2d 1109 p.1114

2144 Followed by: . Rexam, Inc. v. USW, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19495, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2562 (D. Minn. Oct. 30, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN18{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19495

2145 Cited by: . Lawson v. Potter, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16425, 92 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1092 (W.D. Mo. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

282 F. Supp. 2d 1089 p.1093

2146 Cited by: . Moriconi v. AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC, 280 F. Supp. 2d 867, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15792 (E.D. Ark. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

280 F. Supp. 2d 867 p.877

2147 Cited by: . South Dakota v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., 2003 DSD 12, 280 F. Supp. 2d 919, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14791 (D.S.D. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

280 F. Supp. 2d 919 p.928

2148 Cited by: . Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 266 F. Supp. 2d 909, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9961 (N.D. Iowa 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

266 F. Supp. 2d 909 p.923

2149 Cited by: . Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Bear, 258 F. Supp. 2d 938, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6239 (N.D. Iowa 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Cited}

258 F. Supp. 2d 938 p.941

2150 Cited by: . Moline Mach., Ltd. v. Pillsbury Co., 259 F. Supp. 2d 892, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7358 (D. Minn. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN17{Caution} Page 303 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

259 F. Supp. 2d 892 p.896

2151 Cited by: . Wulfekuhle v. Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3743, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41465, 8 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1215 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3743

2152 Cited by: . Sothmann v. Quad Cities Surgical Assocs., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1736, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1159, 8 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 897 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 5, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29 {Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1736

2153 Cited by: . State ex rel. Nixon v. Nextel West Corp., 248 F. Supp. 2d 885, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3612 (E.D. Mo. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Positive}

248 F. Supp. 2d 885 p.888

2154 Cited by: . Allison v. Wellmark, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24168 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 15, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24168

2155 Cited by: . City of Univ. City v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 229 F. Supp. 2d 927, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21091 (E.D. Mo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN24, HN25{Caution}

229 F. Supp. 2d 927 p.929

2156 Cited by: . Agre v. Rain & Hail LLC, 196 F. Supp. 2d 905, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6903, 187 A.L.R. Fed. 529, 187 A.L.R.5th 529 (D. Minn. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN22{Caution}

196 F. Supp. 2d 905 p.910 Page 304 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2157 Cited by: . Metro Ass'n of Plumbing--Heating--CoolingContrs. v. Minn. Mech. Contrs. Ass'n , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4753 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN20, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4753

2158 Cited by: . Culp v. United Pac. R.R. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21458 (E.D. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

200 F. Supp. 2d 1099 p.1101

2159 Cited by: . Abfalter v. Scott Cos., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19854, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34415 (D. Minn. Nov. 27, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19854

2160 Cited by: . Marsh v. DAKOTACARE, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22725, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1335 (D.S.D. Oct. 27, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22725

2161 Cited by: . Abfalter v. Scott Cos., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20788 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN24{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20788

2162 Cited by: . Metrobank, N.A. v. Foster, 178 F. Supp. 2d 987, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21169 (S.D. Iowa 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN15, HN17, HN18, HN23 {Caution}

178 F. Supp. 2d 987 p.993

2163 Cited by: . Tabor v. Willey, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10445 (N.D. Iowa May 3, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN22

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10445 Page 305 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2164 Cited by: . Stewart v. Pershing Health Sys., 182 F. Supp. 2d 856, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3148, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1379 (E.D. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

182 F. Supp. 2d 856 p.859

2165 Cited by: . Barry v. Dell Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20630 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20630

2166 Followed by: . Cedar Rapids Cellular Tel., L.P. v. Miller, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22624 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 15, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN18 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22624

2167 Cited by: . American Acad. of Estate Planning Attys. v. Goodwin, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20401 (D. Neb. Sept. 7, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20401

2168 Cited by: . Iowa v. United States Cellular Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21656 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 7, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21656

2169 Cited by: . Blaylock v. Hynes, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8904, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1567 (D. Minn. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Positive}

104 F. Supp. 2d 1184 p.1187

2170 Cited by: . Mo. ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22406 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis} Page 306 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22406

2171 Followed by: . Harris v. Deaconess Health Servs. Corp., 61 F. Supp. 2d 889, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12813 (E.D. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25 , HN29{Positive}

61 F. Supp. 2d 889 p.892

2172 Cited by: . Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8627, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1567 (D. Minn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

58 F. Supp. 2d 1036 p.1038

2173 Cited by: . Moubry v. Kreb, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11719 (D. Minn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Positive}

58 F. Supp. 2d 1041 p.1044

2174 Cited by: . Aetna/US Healthcare v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12952 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12952

2175 Cited by: . Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Glaxo Welcome, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4301, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1567 (D. Minn. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

44 F. Supp. 2d 998 p.1002

2176 Cited by: . Tovey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 42 F. Supp. 2d 919, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3301 (W.D. Mo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

42 F. Supp. 2d 919 p.921

2177 Followed by: . Page 307 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Knutsen v. Consumer Credit Counseling Serv., Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16056 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16056

2178 Cited by: . Chessen v. American Registar & Transfer Co., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16857 (D. Minn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN12, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

8 F. Supp. 2d 1161 p.1164

2179 Cited by: . Alcorn v. Union Pac. R.R., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6075 (W.D. Mo. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited}

3 F. Supp. 2d 1085 p.1088

2180 Cited by: . Stephens v. Cowles Media Co., 995 F. Supp. 974, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22045 (D. Minn. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

2181 Cited by: . Stephens v. Cowles Media Co., 995 F. Supp. 974, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10338 (D. Minn. 1998){Analysis}

995 F. Supp. 974 p.977

2182 Cited by: . Larson v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 969, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22049 (D. Minn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

995 F. Supp. 969 p.971

2183 Cited by: . Rural Water Sys. # 1 v. City of Sioux Ctr., 967 F. Supp. 1483, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7839 (N.D. Iowa 1997){Warning}

967 F. Supp. 1483 p.1510

2184 Cited by: . Page 308 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Hous. Corp. v. Reese, 978 F. Supp. 1258, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16594 (D. Minn. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN24, HN25{Cited}

978 F. Supp. 1258 p.1262 978 F. Supp. 1258 p.1265

2185 Cited by: . North Cent. F.S. v. Brown, 951 F. Supp. 1383, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19836, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) P27031 (N.D. Iowa 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN15, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN22, HN25{Caution}

951 F. Supp. 1383 p.1394 951 F. Supp. 1383 p.1395

2186 Cited by: . Farmers Coop. Elevator v. Abels, 950 F. Supp. 931, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18605 (N.D. Iowa 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Analysis}

950 F. Supp. 931 p.935 950 F. Supp. 931 p.936 950 F. Supp. 931 p.937

2187 Followed by, Cited by: . Hanson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 953 F. Supp. 270, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20277 (N.D. Iowa 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 953 F. Supp. 270 p.274 Cited by: 953 F. Supp. 270 p.275

2188 Cited by: . Farmers Co--op.Elevator v. Doden, 946 F. Supp. 718, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16343 (N.D. Iowa 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN15, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN24 , HN25{Positive}

946 F. Supp. 718 p.728 946 F. Supp. 718 p.730 946 F. Supp. 718 p.733

2189 Cited by: . Smith Barney, Inc. v. Painters Local Union No. 109 Pension Fund, 976 F. Supp. 1293, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21572 (D. Neb. 1996){Caution}

976 F. Supp. 1293 p.1296 Page 309 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2190 Cited by: . Smith Barney v. Painters Local Union No. 109 Pension Fund, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21889 (D. Neb. Aug. 6, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

2191 Cited by: . Olympus Aluminum Prods. v. Kehm Enters., 930 F. Supp. 1295, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9888 (N.D. Iowa 1996){Positive}

930 F. Supp. 1295 p.1307

2192 Cited by: . Calloway v. Union Pac. R.R., 929 F. Supp. 1280, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693 (E.D. Mo. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

929 F. Supp. 1280 p.1282

2193 Cited by: . Estate of Foster by Foster v. Shalala, 926 F. Supp. 850, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7667 (N.D. Iowa 1996){Analysis}

926 F. Supp. 850 p.859

2194 Cited by: . Taft v. Burlington N. R.R., 926 F. Supp. 866, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7423 (D. Minn. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

926 F. Supp. 866 p.868

2195 Cited by: . Blair v. Source One Mortg. Servs. Corp., 925 F. Supp. 617, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6281 (D. Minn. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

925 F. Supp. 617 p.620

2196 Cited by: . Neal v. Wilson, 920 F. Supp. 976, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4742 (E.D. Ark. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

920 F. Supp. 976 p.983

2197 Cited by: . Page 310 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Duffel v. Union Pac. R.R., 937 F. Supp. 842, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21214 (E.D. Mo. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited}

937 F. Supp. 842 p.844

2198 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Blackmon Auctions v. Van Buren Truck Ctr., 901 F. Supp. 287, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13499, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6514, 95 TNT 189--33(W.D. Ark. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Distinguished by: 901 F. Supp. 287 p.293 Cited by: 901 F. Supp. 287 p.290 901 F. Supp. 287 p.292

2199 Cited by: . Boatmen's First Nat'l Bank v. McCoy, 861 F. Supp. 846, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11954 (W.D. Mo. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25 {Positive}

861 F. Supp. 846 p.848

2200 Cited by: . Minnesota by Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of Am., 858 F. Supp. 937, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10733 (D. Minn. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

858 F. Supp. 937 p.941 858 F. Supp. 937 p.942

2201 Cited by: . GNS, Inc. v. Winnebago Tribe, 866 F. Supp. 1185, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18145 (N.D. Iowa 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Cited}

866 F. Supp. 1185 p.1190

2202 Cited by: . Hill v. Chemical Bank, 799 F. Supp. 948, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11821 (D. Minn. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

799 F. Supp. 948 p.950

2203 Cited by: . Page 311 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Coalition for Safe Transit, Inc. v. Bi--StateDev. Agency, 778 F. Supp. 464, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17182 (E.D. Mo. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16 , HN17, HN25{Analysis}

778 F. Supp. 464 p.466

2204 Cited by: . McLean v. Carlson Cos., 777 F. Supp. 1480, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17156, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2060 (D. Minn. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

777 F. Supp. 1480 p.1482

2205 Explained by: . Norwood v. Slammons, 788 F. Supp. 1020, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20574 (W.D. Ark. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

788 F. Supp. 1020 p.1028 788 F. Supp. 1020 p.1029

2206 Cited by: . Amrhein v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 894, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17354 (E.D. Mo. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 {Positive}

752 F. Supp. 894 p.895

2207 Cited by: . Stephan v. Arkansas, 747 F. Supp. 1327, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13835 (E.D. Ark. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

747 F. Supp. 1327 p.1328

2208 Cited by: . Garred v. General American Life Ins. Co., 723 F. Supp. 1325, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13142 (W.D. Ark. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Analysis}

723 F. Supp. 1325 p.1326

2209 Cited by: . Kahler Corp. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12073 (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN28, HN29{Cited} Page 312 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2210 Cited by: . Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. RLB Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11182 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 15, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN17, HN25

2211 Cited by: . Howe v. Varity Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17521 (S.D. Iowa July 14, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Warning}

2212 Cited by: . Farm Credit Bank v. Finstrom, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7459 (D. Minn. June 26, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN17, HN18{Cited}

2213 Cited by: . Hanks v. General Motors Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2811 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

2214 Cited by: . Cullipher v. Lindsey Rice Mill, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 35, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1517 (W.D. Ark. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

706 F. Supp. 35 p.36

2215 Cited by: . Grant County Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Arkansas Custom Homes, Inc., 698 F. Supp. 169, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12279 (E.D. Ark. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Cited}

698 F. Supp. 169 p.171

2216 Cited by: . Stormer v. Charlie's Cafe Exceptionale, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18619 (D. Minn. May 3, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

2217 Cited by: . Holiday v. Travelers Ins. Co., 666 F. Supp. 1286, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7287 (W.D. Ark. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN25{Caution}

666 F. Supp. 1286 p.1288 Page 313 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2218 Cited by: . Woodward v. Turnage, 646 F. Supp. 219, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18568 (E.D. Mo. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

646 F. Supp. 219 p.220

2219 Cited by: . Contemporary Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292 , 638 F. Supp. 923, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23546 (D. Minn. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24

638 F. Supp. 923 p.926

2220 Cited by: . Ident Corp. of America v. Wendt, 638 F. Supp. 116, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24701, 1987--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P67867 (E.D. Mo. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

638 F. Supp. 116 p.117

2221 Cited by: . National City Bank v. Coopers & Lybrand, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14244 (D. Minn. Nov. 1, 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2222 Cited by: . In re Registration of Edudata Corp., 599 F. Supp. 1089, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23025 (D. Minn. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

599 F. Supp. 1089 p.1090

2223 Cited by: . Dasler v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23979 (D. Minn. Aug. 30, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29

2224 Cited by: . Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Gomez--Bethke, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18009, 18 Av. Cas. (CCH) P18036, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34561, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34561, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1374, 34 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 837 (D. Minn. Apr. 4, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution} Page 314 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2225 Cited by: . Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Roemer, 603 F. Supp. 7, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18601, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1307 (D. Minn. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

603 F. Supp. 7 p.12 603 F. Supp. 7 p.13 9TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2226 Cited by: . Kohama v. McCabe, Hamilton & Renny Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18401 (9th Cir. Haw. July 21, 2006)

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18401

2227 Cited by: . Sroka Family, L.L.C. v. Prudential Secs., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405 (9th Cir. Nev. Apr. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405

2228 Cited by: . Miles v. Okun (In re Miles), 430 F.3d 1083, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 27085, 45 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 202, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P80418 (9th Cir. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

430 F.3d 1083 p.1088

2229 Cited by: . AG of Guam v. Torres, 419 F.3d 1017, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17229 (9th Cir. Guam 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

419 F.3d 1017 p.1020

2230 Cited by: . Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10408, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2475, 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60009, 10 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1088 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

410 F.3d 1071 p.1075

2231 Cited by: . Page 315 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass'n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14238 (9th Cir. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN16, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

376 F.3d 831 p.838 376 F.3d 831 p.839 376 F.3d 831 p.840

2232 Cited by: . Calif. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13813 (9th Cir. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17{Caution}

375 F.3d 831 p.838

2233 Followed by: . Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22531 (9th Cir. Cal. July 6, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN23{Analysis}

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22531

2234 Followed by: . Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation, 373 F.3d 945, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11678 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Positive}

373 F.3d 945 p.949

2235 Cited by: . Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., 340 F.3d 1033, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17657, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7669, 2003 D.A.R. 9621, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92487 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN17, HN24 {Caution}

340 F.3d 1033 p.1040

2236 Cited by: . Lopez v. FOX TV Animation, Inc., 76 Fed. Appx. 769, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

76 Fed. Appx. 769 p.771

2237 Cited by: . 40235 Wash. St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 329 F.3d 1076, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10358, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4329, 2003 D.A.R. 5547, 41 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 96, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P78858, 50 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 145 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24{Positive} Page 316 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

329 F.3d 1076 p.1079

2238 Cited by: . Somerville v. Longview Fibre Co., 64 Fed. Appx. 42, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7385 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

64 Fed. Appx. 42 p.42

2239 Cited by: . Gregory v. SCIE, LLC, 317 F.3d 1050, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1233, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 795, 2003 D.A.R. 1046, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2833, 147 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10171, 8 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 689 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Positive}

317 F.3d 1050 p.1052

2240 Cited by: . Gregory v. SCIE, LLC, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12566, 148 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59719 (9th Cir. Cal. Jan. 27, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12566

2241 Cited by: . Dahl v. Rosenfeld, 316 F.3d 1074, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1005, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 702, 2003 D.A.R. 881, 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2841, 147 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10170 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

316 F.3d 1074 p.1077

2242 Cited by: . Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26457, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 12264, 2002 D.A.R. 14468 (9th Cir. Idaho 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Caution}

314 F.3d 390 p.393

2243 Cited by: . Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22494, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10716, 2002 D.A.R. 12393, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2267 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

309 F.3d 1123 p.1128

2244 Cited by: . Page 317 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28037, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92279 (9th Cir. Cal. Oct. 29, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28037

2245 Cited by: . Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23019, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9690, 2002 D.A.R. 10937, 13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1619 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

304 F.3d 856 p.858

2246 Cited by: . Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17180, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7616, 2002 D.A.R. 9585, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91959 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

300 F.3d 1112 p.1118

2247 Cited by: . Wander v. Kaus, 300 F.3d 1107, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17181, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7624, 2002 D.A.R. 9588, 10 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P10--148,13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 860 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002){Warning}

300 F.3d 1107 p.1110

2248 Cited by: . Hoﬂer v. Aetna US Healthcare of Cal., Inc., 296 F.3d 764, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13827, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6127, 2002 D.A.R. 7685 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Warning}

296 F.3d 764 p.767 296 F.3d 764 p.769

2249 Cited by: . Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 12716, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5810, 2002 D.A.R. 7433 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24{Analysis}

294 F.3d 1179 p.1183

2250 Cited by: . Patenaude v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the United States, 290 F.3d 1020, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9124, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4119, 2002 D.A.R. 5239, 28 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1578, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91909 (9th Cir. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive} Page 318 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

290 F.3d 1020 p.1023

2251 Followed by, Explained by, Cited by: . Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 604, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 389, 2002 D.A.R. 513 (9th Cir. Guam 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 277 F.3d 1086 p.1090 Explained by: 277 F.3d 1086 p.1090 Cited by: 277 F.3d 1086 p.1089

2252 Cited by: . Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19157, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9199, 2001 D.A.R. 9199, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59475 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

255 F.3d 683 p.689

2253 Cited by: . Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13385, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4945, 2001 D.A.R. 6107, 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2353, 143 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11025 (9th Cir. Cal. June 15, 2001){Caution}

2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13385

2254 Cited by: . Chadwick v. IBEW, 20 Fed. Appx. 622, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11643 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN20, HN25{Analysis}

20 Fed. Appx. 622 p.623

2255 Cited by: . Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11207, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4353, 2001 D.A.R. 5357 (9th Cir. Haw. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

251 F.3d 795 p.799 251 F.3d 795 p.802

2256 Cited by: . Masters v. Sulzer Calcitek, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 754, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11350 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 Page 319 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

9 Fed. Appx. 754 p.755

2257 Cited by: . Slurry Seal v. Laborers Int'l Union of North Am. Highway & Street Strippers/Road & Street Slurry Local Union 1184, 241 F.3d 1142, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3116, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1751, 2001 D.A.R. 2229, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2662, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10922 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Caution}

241 F.3d 1142 p.1146

2258 Cited by: . Abadam v. Hawai'i, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 926 (9th Cir. Haw. Jan. 18, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 926

2259 Cited by: . Firestone v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 219 F.3d 1063, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17257, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5987, 2000 D.A.R. 7941, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897, 141 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10764, 6 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 371 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

219 F.3d 1063 p.1065

2260 Cited by: . ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 11453, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4063, 2000 D.A.R. 5455, 51 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1146, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20574 (9th Cir. Mont. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

213 F.3d 1108 p.1113 213 F.3d 1108 p.1116

2261 Cited by: . Balcorta v. Twentieth Century--Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6229, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2673, 2000 D.A.R. 3623, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2071, 5 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1835 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Caution}

208 F.3d 1102 p.1106 208 F.3d 1102 p.1107

2262 Cited by: . Page 320 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 4101, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2120, 2000 D.A.R. 2905, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1208, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9856, 2000--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P72822 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Caution}

208 F.3d 1073 p.1081

2263 Cited by: . Local 159 v. Nor--CalPlumbing, Inc., 185 F.3d 978, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17706, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5907, 99 D.A.R. 7543, 23 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2988, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3077 (9th Cir. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

185 F.3d 978 p.981

2264 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . McBride v. PLM Int'l, Inc., 179 F.3d 737, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11366, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4281, 99 D.A.R. 5491, 23 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1435 (9th Cir. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN26, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

179 F.3d 737 p.749

2265 Cited by: . McBride v. PLM Int'l, 153 F.3d 972, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 20296, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6476, 98 D.A.R. 8997 (9th Cir. Cal. 1998){Warning}

153 F.3d 972 p.976

2266 Limited by: . Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5924, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 782, 98 D.A.R. 1055 (9th Cir. Cal. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

2267 Cited by: . Geweke Ford v. St. Joseph's Omni Preferred Care, 130 F.3d 1355, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 34417, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9236, 97 D.A.R. 14907, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2222 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17{Caution}

130 F.3d 1355 p.1357

2268 Cited by: . Standard Ins. Co. v. Saklad, 127 F.3d 1179, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29894, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8389, 97 D.A.R. 13529, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2049 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution} Page 321 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

127 F.3d 1179 p.1181

2269 Cited by: . Green v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26267 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 19, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

2270 Cited by: . Campbell v. Aerospace Corp., 123 F.3d 1308, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23026, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7095, 97 D.A.R. 11453, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1666, 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 348, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58366 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

123 F.3d 1308 p.1314

2271 Cited by: . Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. City & County of San Francisco, 121 F.3d 557, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21730, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6534, 97 D.A.R. 10681, 21 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1565, 97--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50713 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19{Analysis}

121 F.3d 557 p.558

2272 Cited by: . Mason v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21585 (9th Cir. Mont. Aug. 13, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

2273 Cited by: . Easton v. Crossland Mortg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13606, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4354, 97 D.A.R. 7297, 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44771, 73 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1885 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

114 F.3d 979 p.982

2274 Cited by: . New SD, Inc. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 79 F.3d 953, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6056, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2227, 96 D.A.R. 3720, 40 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P76911 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

79 F.3d 953 p.954 Page 322 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2275 Cited by: . Rains v. Criterion Sys., 80 F.3d 339, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 5409, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2009, 96 D.A.R. 3405, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44008, 70 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 635, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 936 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

80 F.3d 339 p.343 80 F.3d 339 p.345

2276 Cited by: . Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2584, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1125, 96 D.A.R. 1921, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1758 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18, HN24{Caution}

76 F.3d 1480 p.1485

2277 Distinguished by: . Pilkington PLC v. Perelman, 72 F.3d 1396, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36632, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9859, 95 D.A.R. 17163, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2494, 96 TNT 5--81(9th Cir. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

72 F.3d 1396 p.1398

2278 Cited by: . Jimeno v. Mobil Oil Corp., 66 F.3d 1514, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27562, 60 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 981, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7564, 95 D.A.R. 12951, 4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1646, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2472, 130 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11423 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

66 F.3d 1514 p.1522 60 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 981 p.988

2279 Cited by: . Ziomek v. City & County of San Francisco, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27863 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 25, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2280 Cited by: . Seven Resorts v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14433, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4423, 95 D.A.R. 7599, 1995 A.M.C. 2087 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

57 F.3d 771 p.773 Page 323 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2281 Cited by: . Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20753, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6070, 94 D.A.R. 11111, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98353 (9th Cir. Cal. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

32 F.3d 422 p.423 32 F.3d 422 p.426

2282 Cited by: . Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 13406, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4154, 94 D.A.R. 7738, 18 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1567 (9th Cir. Or. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

26 F.3d 930 p.933 26 F.3d 930 p.934

2283 Cited by: . Banner v. Burger, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5464, 73 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1608, 94 TNT 65--16(9th Cir. Alaska 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10{Analysis}

73 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1608 p.1610

2284 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Livadas v. Aubry, 987 F.2d 552, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 33711, 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2808, 125 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10629, 2 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 106 (9th Cir. Cal. 1993){Warning}

987 F.2d 552 p.562

2285 Cited by: . People by Lungren v. Keating, 986 F.2d 346, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 3064, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1295 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Warning}

986 F.2d 346 p.347

2286 Followed by: . Cripps v. Life Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1261, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31306, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9572, 92 D.A.R. 16073, 92 D.A.R. 16153, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 940 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

980 F.2d 1261 p.1265

2287 Cited by: . Page 324 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Trustees of Electrical Workers Health & Welfare Trust v. Marjo Corp., 988 F.2d 865, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 30571, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1879, 93 D.A.R. 3384, 16 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2117 (9th Cir. Nev. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

988 F.2d 865 p.867

2288 Followed by: . Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 20194, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7368, 92 D.A.R. 12006 (9th Cir. N. Mar. I. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN17 , HN24{Positive}

973 F.2d 803 p.807

2289 Cited by: . Sieu Mei Tu v. Southern Paciﬁc Transp. Co., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (9th Cir. June 1, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

2290 Cited by: . Servillon v. Paciﬁc Gas & Electric Co., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 8643 (9th Cir. Cal. Apr. 15, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN25{Analysis}

2291 Cited by: . Tingey v. Pixley--Richards West, Inc., 953 F.2d 1124, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 102, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 310, 92 D.A.R. 392, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2445 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN29 {Caution}

953 F.2d 1124 p.1129

2292 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Livadas v. Aubry, 943 F.2d 1140, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21139, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7319, 91 D.A.R. 11119, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2404, 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10967 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991){Warning}

943 F.2d 1140 p.1149

2293 Cited by: . Schlacter--Jones v. General Tel., 936 F.2d 435, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12197, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4752, 91 D.A.R. 7105, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 897, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10795 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Warning}

936 F.2d 435 p.439 Page 325 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2294 Cited by: . Perugini v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 935 F.2d 1083, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12214, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4694, 91 D.A.R. 7114, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40840, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 333, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1021, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2660, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10796 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

935 F.2d 1083 p.1087

2295 Cited by: . Galvez v. Kuhn, 933 F.2d 773, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10154, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3653, 91 D.A.R. 5899, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2521, 119 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10834 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

933 F.2d 773 p.777

2296 Cited by: . Burns v. Cerciello, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7416 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN11, HN24{Analysis}

2297 Cited by: . Butcher v. Milner, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2298 Cited by: . Hendy v. Losse, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2141 (9th Cir. Cal. Feb. 12, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Analysis}

2299 Cited by: . Stikes v. Chevron USA, Inc., 914 F.2d 1265, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16316, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1311, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2414, 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10302 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

914 F.2d 1265 p.1267

2300 Cited by: . Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing v. Franchise Tax Bd., 909 F.2d 1266, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11822, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1993 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN29{Caution}

909 F.2d 1266 p.1275 Page 326 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2301 Cited by: . Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc., 908 F.2d 477, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11491, 1990--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69099 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

908 F.2d 477 p.479

2302 Cited by: . Ultramar America, Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 5741 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Questioned}

900 F.2d 1412 p.1414 900 F.2d 1412 p.1416

2303 Explained by: . Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 900 F.2d 195, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4971, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1485 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Analysis}

900 F.2d 195 p.197

2304 Cited by: . Harper v. American Chambers Life Ins. Co., 898 F.2d 1432, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4275, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1238 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

898 F.2d 1432 p.1435

2305 Cited by: . Hydrostorage, Inc. v. Northern Cal. Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Comm., 891 F.2d 719, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18230, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2225, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56163 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Questioned}

891 F.2d 719 p.724

2306 Cited by: . Whitman v. Raley's Inc., 886 F.2d 1177, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14964, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1999, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1559, 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2731, 113 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11637 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

886 F.2d 1177 p.1180 886 F.2d 1177 p.1181 Page 327 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2307 Cited by: . Jackson v. Southern California Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 11014, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39204, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39470, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1092, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3238, 112 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11390 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Questioned}

881 F.2d 638 p.642

2308 Cited by: . Call v. Sumitomo Bank of California, 881 F.2d 626, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10770, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1273 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Caution}

881 F.2d 626 p.632

2309 Cited by: . Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co., 873 F.2d 1283, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6037, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39181, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 957, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2371, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11131 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

873 F.2d 1283 p.1285

2310 Cited by: . Cantrell v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 1249, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2642 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN11, HN17, HN24{Questioned}

873 F.2d 1249 p.1251

2311 Cited by: . Holcomb v. Bingham Toyota, 871 F.2d 109, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4256, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 499, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2043, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56054 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7{Positive}

871 F.2d 109 p.110

2312 Followed by, Cited by: . Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 15348, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10862 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN20, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 861 F.2d 1389 p.1392 861 F.2d 1389 p.1393 Page 328 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

861 F.2d 1389 p.1394 Cited by: 861 F.2d 1389 p.1395

2313 Cited by: . K--WIndus. v. National Sur. Corp., 855 F.2d 640, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11768, 41 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P77053 (9th Cir. Mont. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN11, HN17{Questioned}

855 F.2d 640 p.642

2314 Cited by: . Newberry v. Paciﬁc Racing Asso., 854 F.2d 1142, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11028, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 959, 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2047, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10676 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

854 F.2d 1142 p.1146

2315 Cited by: . Miller v. AT & T Network Sys., 850 F.2d 543, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8637, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38076, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1734, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 966, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2987, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10582 (9th Cir. Or. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

850 F.2d 543 p.547

2316 Cited by: . Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12759, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 159 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25 , HN29{Caution}

858 F.2d 1376 p.1383 858 F.2d 1376 p.1386

2317 Cited by: . Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 849 F.2d 1197, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8099 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25, HN29{Caution}

849 F.2d 1197 p.1202 849 F.2d 1197 p.1204

2318 Cited by: . Page 329 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Miller v. AT&T Network Sys., 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7726, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38029, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 562, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2702, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10521 (9th Cir. Or. June 7, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

2319 Cited by: . Local Union 598, Plumbers & Pipeﬁtters Industry Journeymen & Apprentices Training Fund v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 846 F.2d 1213, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 6492, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1204, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10823 (9th Cir. Wash. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

846 F.2d 1213 p.1218

2320 Cited by: . Utility Workers of America, Local No. 246 v. Southern California Edison Co., 852 F.2d 1083, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5864, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37945, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1068, 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2077, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10470 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8, HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

852 F.2d 1083 p.1085

2321 Cited by: . Utility Workers of America, Local No. 246 v. Southern California Edison Co., 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37945, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 367, 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2317, 13 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1736 (9th Cir. Cal. May 4, 1988) {Warning}

13 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1736

2322 Cited by: . Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Ofﬁce, Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2202, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26245, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1016 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

839 F.2d 1380 p.1381

2323 Cited by: . Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15006 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Caution}

834 F.2d 730 p.735

2324 Cited by: . Page 330 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Young v. Anthony's Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13820, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1086, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2798, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10196 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Questioned}

830 F.2d 993 p.997

2325 Cited by: . Price v. PSA, Inc., 829 F.2d 871, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13207, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1357, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2805, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10158 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

829 F.2d 871 p.876

2326 Cited by: . United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union Numbers 137, 324, 770, 899, 905, 1167, 1222, 1428, & 1442 v. Food Employers Council, Inc., 827 F.2d 519, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11880, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2223, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10114, 1987--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P67694 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN17, HN18{Caution}

827 F.2d 519 p.523

2327 Cited by: . Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 826 F.2d 857, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11423, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 705, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2145, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10194, 13 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1467, O.S.H. Dec. (CCH) P28176, 1988 O.S.H. Dec. (CCH) P28176 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Caution}

826 F.2d 857 p.860

2328 Distinguished by: . Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11333, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37328, 44 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1180, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1112 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN19, HN22 , HN29{Questioned}

826 F.2d 794 p.799

2329 Cited by: . Stallcop v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 820 F.2d 1044, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7900, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37426, 44 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 237, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1010, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3075, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12416 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25{Caution}

820 F.2d 1044 p.1048 Page 331 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2330 Cited by: . General Motors Corp. v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 815 F.2d 1305, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1159 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

815 F.2d 1305 p.1308

2331 Cited by: . Johnson v. Armored Transport of California, Inc., 813 F.2d 1041, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4157, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37027, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1188, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 954, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2504, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12329 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

813 F.2d 1041 p.1044

2332 Cited by: . Sullivan v. First Afﬁliated Secur., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Questioned}

813 F.2d 1368 p.1371 813 F.2d 1368 p.1375

2333 Cited by: . Utley v. Varian Associates, Inc., 811 F.2d 1279, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2729, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36863, 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 191 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

811 F.2d 1279 p.1283

2334 Cited by: . Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Digregorio, 811 F.2d 1249, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2749, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1675 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

811 F.2d 1249 p.1251

2335 Cited by: . Fresh International Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34472, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55669 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

805 F.2d 1353 p.1362

2336 Cited by: . Page 332 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Gilchrist v. Jim Slemons Imports, Inc., 803 F.2d 1488, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33171, 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36656, 42 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 314, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1053 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

803 F.2d 1488 p.1497

2337 Cited by: . EEOC v. Nevada Resort Asso., 792 F.2d 882, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26277, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36217, 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 7, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 543 (9th Cir. Nev. 1986){Positive}

792 F.2d 882 p.887

2338 Cited by: . Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33057, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12043 (9th Cir. Cal. June 12, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN12 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Caution}

2339 Cited by: . Misic v. Building Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25184, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1497 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) {Questioned}

789 F.2d 1374 p.1377

2340 Followed by, Cited by: . Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 786 F.2d 928, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23750, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1223, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2590, 104 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11888 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 786 F.2d 928 p.931 Cited by: 786 F.2d 928 p.931 786 F.2d 928 p.932 786 F.2d 928 p.937

2341 Cited by: . Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21765, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2780 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

780 F.2d 816 p.818 780 F.2d 816 p.819 Page 333 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2342 Cited by: . Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21839 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN24{Caution}

780 F.2d 766 p.769

2343 Cited by: . Clorox Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist., 779 F.2d 517, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25613, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2770 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17{Caution}

779 F.2d 517 p.522

2344 Cited by: . Mobil Oil Corp. v. Long Beach, 772 F.2d 534, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23264 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Questioned}

772 F.2d 534 p.538 772 F.2d 534 p.539

2345 Cited by: . In re Daniel, 771 F.2d 1352, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23236, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P70763, 13 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 793, 7 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1096 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Warning}

2346 Cited by: . California Hospital Asso. v. Henning, 770 F.2d 856, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 22745, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2065, 103 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55524, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 543 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985){Caution}

770 F.2d 856 p.861

2347 Cited by: . Janakes v. United States Postal Service, 768 F.2d 1091, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21562 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN15, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Caution}

768 F.2d 1091 p.1093 768 F.2d 1091 p.1094

2348 Cited by: . Page 334 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Takeda v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20506, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1301 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29{Caution}

765 F.2d 815 p.821 765 F.2d 815 p.822

2349 Cited by: . Dyer v. Greif Bros., Inc., 766 F.2d 398, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P35445, 45 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 852 (9th Cir. Cal. 1985){Warning}

766 F.2d 398 p.400

2350 Followed by, Cited by: . Hunter v. United Van Lines, 746 F.2d 635, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17030, 40 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 581 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25{Questioned}

Followed by: 746 F.2d 635 p.639 746 F.2d 635 p.643 Cited by: 746 F.2d 635 p.639 746 F.2d 635 p.640

2351 Followed by: . Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. Majestic Housing, 743 F.2d 1341, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18193, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2351, 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2572, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11209 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Questioned}

743 F.2d 1341 p.1344

2352 Cited by: . Lane v. Goren, 743 F.2d 1337, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18196, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34692, 5 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2089, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1650 (9th Cir. Cal. 1984){Caution}

743 F.2d 1337 p.1341

2353 Cited by: . Olguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 740 F.2d 1468, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19354, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 399, 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2073, 101 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11155 (9th Cir. Ariz. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Warning}

740 F.2d 1468 p.1471 Page 335 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

740 F.2d 1468 p.1472

2354 Cited by: . McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14044 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24 {Positive}

722 F.2d 582 p.586

2355 Explained by, Cited by: . Southern Paciﬁc Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 716 F.2d 1285, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16522 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Positive}

Explained by: 716 F.2d 1285 p.1292 Cited by: 716 F.2d 1285 p.1288 9TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

2356 Cited by: . Barton v. Cedco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51362 (D. Nev. July 24, 2006)

2357 Cited by: . Szanto v. Szanto, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46555 (D. Nev. July 6, 2006)

2358 Cited by: . Fazekas v. Longnecker, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44928 (D. Haw. June 30, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44928

2359 Cited by: . McNearney v. U.S. Bankcorp, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36479 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36479

2360 Cited by: . Vision Builders, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Masonry Sec. Plan of Wash., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28435 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 Page 336 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28435

2361 Cited by: . Bou--Matic,L.L.C. v. Ollimac Dairy, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35211 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35211

2362 Cited by: . Smith v. Hearst Communs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22546 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22546

2363 Cited by: . Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Powerex Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19634, 2006--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P75232 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19634

2364 Cited by: . Stewart v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20137 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20137

2365 Cited by: . Holliman v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14627 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14627

2366 Cited by: . Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7326 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7326

2367 Cited by: . Martinez v. Del Taco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5563 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5563 Page 337 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2368 Cited by: . Hornung v. City of Oakland, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35476 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35476

2369 Cited by: . Lepree v. Cathedral Hill Assocs., L.P., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3766 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24 , HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3766

2370 Cited by: . McIntyre v. Carpenters Health & Sec. Trust of W. Wash., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3759, 37 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2037 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN9, HN10, HN11

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3759

2371 Cited by: . Alvarez v. ANC Rental Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41810 (D. Nev. Dec. 29, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41810

2372 Cited by: . In re Admin. Comm. ERISA Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40403, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1865 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40403

2373 Cited by: . Leo Finnegan Constr. Co. v. Northwest Plumbing & Pipeﬁtting Indus. Health Welfare & Vacation Trust, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40396, 36 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2417 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40396

2374 Cited by: . Lopez v. New United Motor Mfg., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31628 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31628 Page 338 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2375 Cited by: . Go Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31404 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31404

2376 Cited by: . Intransit, Inc. v. Excel N. Am. Rd. Transp., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41185 (D. Or. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN25{Caution}

426 F. Supp. 2d 1136 p.1143

2377 Cited by: . Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc. v. Martini, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26922 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26922

2378 Cited by: . Montara Water & Sanitary Dist. v. Dow Chem. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43012 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2005)

2379 Cited by: . City of Oceanside v. Dow Chem. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43005 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2005)

2380 Cited by: . City of Alhambra v. Dow Chem. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43004 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2005)

2381 Cited by: . City of Livingston v. Dow Chem. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42387 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42387

2382 Cited by: . Maletis v. Perkins & Co., P.C., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21444, 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6514 (D. Or. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25 {Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21444 Page 339 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2383 Cited by: . Heath v. AT&T Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34334 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34334

2384 Cited by: . Delﬁno v. Felch, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32373 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32373

2385 Cited by: . Perrapato v. San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33718 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33718

2386 Cited by: . Swords v. Kemp, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41285 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17{Analysis}

423 F. Supp. 2d 1031 p.1033

2387 Cited by: . Google, Inc. v. Afﬁnity Engines, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37369, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29067 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37369

2388 Cited by: . Sutter Health v. Unite Here, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20892, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3176 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 , HN24{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20892

2389 Cited by: . In re Textainer P'ship Sec. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26711 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26711 Page 340 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2390 Cited by: . Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Shoemaker, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36171 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36171

2391 Cited by: . Little v. RMC Pac. Materials, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14338 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14338

2392 Cited by: . Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9718 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9718

2393 Cited by: . Busey v. P.W. Supermarkets, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12334 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

368 F. Supp. 2d 1045 p.1048

2394 Cited by: . Evergreen Sch. Dist. v. N.F., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37420 (W.D. Wash. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

393 F. Supp. 2d 1070 p.1074

2395 Followed by: . Wiley v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35568 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35568

2396 Cited by: . Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n , 366 F. Supp. 2d 887, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6387 (D. Ariz. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Cited}

366 F. Supp. 2d 887 p.902 Page 341 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2397 Cited by: . Gargiulo v. Decker, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6002, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93206 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 {Positive}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6002

2398 Followed by: . Coughlin v. United Van Lines, LLC, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (C.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Analysis}

362 F. Supp. 2d 1170 p.1172

2399 Cited by: . Bonilla v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38524 (C.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Cited}

407 F. Supp. 2d 1107 p.1111

2400 Cited by: . McMaster v. Coca--ColaBottling Co., 392 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5978 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Cited}

392 F. Supp. 2d 1107 p.1110

2401 Cited by: . Patel v. Sugen, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5036, 34 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2723 (N.D. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24, HN25{Cited}

354 F. Supp. 2d 1098 p.1103

2402 Cited by: . W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig. v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839 (D. Nev. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

346 F. Supp. 2d 1123 p.1129

2403 Cited by: . Baker v. Asbestos Defendants (B P), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20152 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited} Page 342 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20152

2404 Cited by: . Verisign, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17330, 2004--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74551 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17330

2405 Cited by: . Phillips v. Horton, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16150 (D. Or. Aug. 10, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16150

2406 Cited by: . Deleo v. Rudin, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15449 (D. Nev. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

328 F. Supp. 2d 1106 p.1111

2407 Cited by: . Nat'l Credit Reporting Ass'n v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17303, 2004--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74567 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17303

2408 Cited by: . Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14106 (N.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Positive}

325 F. Supp. 2d 1049 p.1055

2409 Cited by: . Doran v. Purdue Pharma Co., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13322 (D. Nev. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

324 F. Supp. 2d 1147 p.1150

2410 Followed by: . Wagner v. Amor 17 Corp., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506, 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 320 (D. Nev. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Cited} Page 343 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

321 F. Supp. 2d 1195 p.1201

2411 Cited by: . Harris v. Or. HHS, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9248 (D. Or. May 14, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9248

2412 Followed by: . Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Spurgeon, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9738 (C.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18{Cited}

319 F. Supp. 2d 1108 p.1116

2413 Cited by: . Capital Ptnrs. Int'l Ventures, Inc. v. Danzas Corp., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4015 (N.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

309 F. Supp. 2d 1138 p.1142

2414 Cited by: . Jain v. Clarendon Am. Co., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6785 (W.D. Wash. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Cited}

304 F. Supp. 2d 1263 p.1266

2415 Cited by: . United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4545 (E.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17{Warning}

300 F. Supp. 2d 964 p.972

2416 Cited by: . Able Bldg. Maint. Co. v. Bd. of Trs. of Gen. Emples. Trust Fund, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20816 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2003){Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20816

2417 Cited by: . Goldstein v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass'n, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24506 (D. Haw. Sept. 9, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24506 Page 344 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2418 Cited by: . Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n , 284 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17186 (D. Ariz. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

284 F. Supp. 2d 1240 p.1243

2419 Cited by: . Gregory v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10943 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10943

2420 Followed by: . T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10234 (S.D. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

268 F. Supp. 2d 1240 p.1245

2421 Cited by: . Alloco v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11664 (D. Ariz. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

256 F. Supp. 2d 1023 p.1032

2422 Cited by: . Cooper v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4559 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4559

2423 Cited by: . Herman v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7221, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92486 (S.D. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

266 F. Supp. 2d 1208 p.1211

2424 Cited by: . Smith & Green Corp. v. Trs. of the Const. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2266, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2813 (D. Nev. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Cited} Page 345 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

244 F. Supp. 2d 1098 p.1104

2425 Cited by: . Beck v. Pace Int'l Union, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2283, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2601 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2283

2426 Cited by: . Schuster v. Gardner, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25400 (S.D. Cal. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Cited}

319 F. Supp. 2d 1159 p.1162

2427 Cited by: . Myers v. Jones, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22909 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22909

2428 Cited by: . Ecker v. Ford Motor Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26229 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26229

2429 Cited by: . Grimm v. HealthMont, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21475, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1500, 8 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 504 (D. Or. Oct. 29, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21475

2430 Cited by: . Trs. of the Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. Tab Contrs., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19498, 29 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2159 (D. Nev. 2002){Cited}

224 F. Supp. 2d 1272 p.1282

2431 Cited by: . Bertrand v. Aventis Pasteur Labs., Inc., 226 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18746 (D. Ariz. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive} Page 346 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

226 F. Supp. 2d 1206 p.1210

2432 Cited by: . TPS Utilicom Servs. v. AT&T Corp., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17042 (C.D. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

223 F. Supp. 2d 1089 p.1097

2433 Cited by: . Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15733 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15733

2434 Cited by: . City & County of S.F. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13523 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13523

2435 Cited by: . Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass'n v. Hoang, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14240 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN17{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14240

2436 Cited by: . Greene v. Sprint Communs., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26736 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26736

2437 Followed by, Cited by: . Precision Pay Phones v. Qwest Communs. Corp., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11855 (N.D. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 210 F. Supp. 2d 1106 p.1117 Cited by: 210 F. Supp. 2d 1106 p.1111

2438 Cited by: . Page 347 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Freightliner, LLC v. Kennedy, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10324 (D. Or. May 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10324

2439 Cited by: . Doherty v. Pasteur, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9596 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9596

2440 Followed by: . Klussman v. Cross--CountryBank, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9387 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Warning}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9387

2441 Cited by: . Garcia v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15122 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15122

2442 Cited by: . Gordon v. San Francisco Newspaper Agency, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6372 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6372

2443 Cited by: . Barrett v. Clark, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3629 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3629

2444 Cited by: . G.B. v. Archdiocese of Portland in Or., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7033 (D. Or. Feb. 11, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7033

2445 Cited by: . Pickern v. Stanton's Rest. & Woodsman Room, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1587 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Positive} Page 348 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1587

2446 Cited by: . Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina Resort, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1709, 13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 413 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN24{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1709

2447 Cited by: . Littel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26519 (C.D. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Analysis}

259 F. Supp. 2d 1016 p.1021

2448 Cited by: . King v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D. Or. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

210 F. Supp. 2d 1201 p.1212

2449 Cited by: . Mead v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25645 (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25645

2450 Cited by: . C.B. v. Grammond, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23621 (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23621

2451 Cited by: . JC2 v. Grammond, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23626 (D. Or. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

232 F. Supp. 2d 1166 p.1168

2452 Cited by: . M.K. v. Archdiocese of Portland, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23625 (D. Or. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution} Page 349 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

228 F. Supp. 2d 1168 p.1169

2453 Cited by: . WB v. Grammond, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23627 (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23627

2454 Cited by: . Albin v. Qwest Communs. Corp., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22744, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1652 (D. Or. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN11, HN24{Caution}

194 F. Supp. 2d 1138 p.1141

2455 Cited by: . Chesler/Perlmutter Prods. v. Fireworks Entm't, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21281 (C.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN22{Positive}

177 F. Supp. 2d 1050 p.1055

2456 Cited by: . Von Heeder v. Safeway, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19681, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2121 (D. Or. Nov. 11, 2001)

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19681

2457 Cited by: . Precision Pay Phones v. Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18776 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18776

2458 Cited by: . Continental Forge v. S. Cal. Gas Co. (In re Cal. Retail Natural Gas & Elec. Antitrust Litig.) , 170 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18321, 2001--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P73502, 2001--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73502 (D. Nev. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

170 F. Supp. 2d 1052 p.1056

2459 Cited by: . Page 350 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Stockton Christian Life Ctr., Inc. v. IRS, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16954, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6472, 2001--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50705 (E.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Analysis}

172 F. Supp. 2d 1292 p.1295

2460 Cited by: . Perez v. P&G Mfg. Co., 161 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13105, 9 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P9--127,13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 548 (E.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

161 F. Supp. 2d 1110 p.1118

2461 Cited by: . Haller v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Northwest, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22146 (D. Or. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Caution}

184 F. Supp. 2d 1040 p.1045

2462 Cited by: . Hendricks v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21697, 2002--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P73544 (S.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24{Caution}

160 F. Supp. 2d 1155 p.1157

2463 Cited by: . Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15934 (N.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 p.1120

2464 Cited by: . Asante Techs. v. Pmc--Sierra, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16000 (N.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Caution}

164 F. Supp. 2d 1142 p.1146

2465 Cited by: . Montoya v. Brockway, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9741 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9741 Page 351 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2466 Cited by: . Fardella v. Downey S&L Ass'n, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6037 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17, HN24{Cited}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6037

2467 Cited by: . Moss v. Technicolor, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20307, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2764, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11237 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20307

2468 Cited by: . Macque--Garcia v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hosp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4866 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4866

2469 Cited by: . Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4528, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91411 (N.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

165 F. Supp. 2d 1059 p.1065

2470 Cited by: . Braco v. MCI Worldcom Communs., Inc., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5461 (C.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN22{Positive}

138 F. Supp. 2d 1260 p.1265

2471 Cited by: . Kagan v. Carwell Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4544 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17{Positive}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4544

2472 Cited by: . BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2805 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2001){Analysis}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2805 Page 352 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2473 Cited by: . Fucci v. Paciﬁc Bell Tel. Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1841 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1841

2474 Cited by: . Shaw v. Charles Schwab & Co., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3494 (C.D. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

128 F. Supp. 2d 1270 p.1271

2475 Distinguished by, Followed by: . Castro v. Providian Nat'l Bank, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19062 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

Distinguished by: 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19062 Followed by: 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19062

2476 Cited by: . Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19654 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19654

2477 Cited by: . Scotti v. Los Robles Reg'l Ctr., 117 F. Supp. 2d 982, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19585 (C.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

117 F. Supp. 2d 982 p.987

2478 Cited by: . IBEW, Local Union 640 v. Dueck, 148 F. Supp. 2d 955, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21298, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11167 (D. Ariz. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN24{Positive}

148 F. Supp. 2d 955 p.959

2479 Cited by: . Bassin v. Bragg, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11255 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11255 Page 353 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2480 Cited by: . Valero v. Peninsula Auto. Machinists Local 1414, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11322 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11322

2481 Cited by: . Germann v. Vulcan Materials Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13093, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59063 (S.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Positive}

106 F. Supp. 2d 1010 p.1012

2482 Cited by: . Brown v. Mojo Records, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9155, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28123 (D. Or. June 6, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9155

2483 Cited by: . Matteo v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9738, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2479 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9738 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2479 p.2482

2484 Distinguished by: . Jae Won Jeong v. Onoda Cement Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7985 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11{Caution}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7985

2485 Cited by: . Casey v. Atlantic Richﬁeld Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6836, 25 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1187 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6836

2486 Cited by: . Page 354 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Madison v. Motion Picture Set Painters & Sign Writers Local 729, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20979 (C.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24, HN25{Positive}

132 F. Supp. 2d 1244 p.1250

2487 Followed by: . Smith v. Sprint Communs. Co., L.P., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20189 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20189

2488 Followed by: . Evans v. Washington County, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20036 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20036

2489 Cited by: . Taylor v. Sun Reporter Publ'g. Co, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15315 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15315

2490 Cited by: . Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., 68 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20219, Blue Sky L. Rep. (CCH) P74195, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90663 (S.D. Cal. 1999) {Warning}

68 F. Supp. 2d 1160 p.1163

2491 Cited by: . Nasca v. Peoplesoft, Inc. (In re Nasca), 87 F. Supp. 2d 967, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13140 (N.D. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

87 F. Supp. 2d 967 p.970

2492 Cited by: . Smith v. Bisso, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11028 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11028

2493 Cited by: . Page 355 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Howell v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 45 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6868, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2383 (W.D. Wash. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

45 F. Supp. 2d 1067 p.1068

2494 Cited by: . Fantasy, Inc. v. Amerco, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3161 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3161

2495 Cited by: . Washington v. Municipal Court, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2993

2496 Cited by: . Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. v. Allied Tech. Group, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21500 (C.D. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17 {Cited}

83 F. Supp. 2d 1132 p.1134

2497 Cited by: . Dead Kennedys v. Biafra, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7914, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27994 (N.D. Cal. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

37 F. Supp. 2d 1151 p.1153

2498 Cited by: . Burbank Podiatry Assocs. Group, APC v. Blue Cross, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1397 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1397

2499 Cited by: . Tramontozzi v. Rysher Entertainment, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 431 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 431

2500 Cited by: . Page 356 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3DO Co. v. Poptop Software, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21281, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1469 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

49 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1469 p.1471

2501 Cited by: . California v. Roman, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17093 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17093

2502 Cited by: . Balcorta v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22665, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10615 (C.D. Cal. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

69 F. Supp. 2d 1195 p.1198

2503 Cited by: . Tam v. Giraudo, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11015 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11015

2504 Cited by: . Hemphill v. Transfresh Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8889 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11{Positive}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8889

2505 Cited by: . Joe Boxer Corp. v. Fritz Transp. Int'l, 33 F. Supp. 2d 851, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21689, 1998 A.M.C. 2576 (C.D. Cal. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Caution}

33 F. Supp. 2d 851 p.854

2506 Cited by: . Great--West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23469 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23469

2507 Followed by: . Page 357 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Chase v. California, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6474 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN24{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6474

2508 Cited by: . Moreno v. Health Partners Health Plan, 4 F. Supp. 2d 888, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6456 (D. Ariz. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN25{Cited}

4 F. Supp. 2d 888 p.889 4 F. Supp. 2d 888 p.890

2509 Distinguished by: . Pedott v. Goldinger, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4259 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4259

2510 Cited by: . Cain v. New United Motor Mfg., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20328 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2511 Cited by: . Petrie v. Paciﬁc Stock Exch., 982 F. Supp. 1390, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17072, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99575 (N.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

982 F. Supp. 1390 p.1393

2512 Cited by: . Jones v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack, 980 F. Supp. 327, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15734, 98 D.A.R. 3753 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

980 F. Supp. 327 p.328

2513 Cited by: . Kirton v. Summit Med. Ctr., 982 F. Supp. 1381, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18806 (N.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

982 F. Supp. 1381 p.1385

2514 Followed by: . Page 358 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

As You Sow v. Shell Oil Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24181 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24181

2515 Cited by: . Reed v. Oregon Iron Works, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10669 (D. Or. July 8, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2516 Cited by: . Goularte v. Abex Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7611 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

2517 Cited by: . Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, 962 F. Supp. 1249, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5447, 97 D.A.R. 12907, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1629 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Warning}

962 F. Supp. 1249 p.1251

2518 Cited by: . City of Walnut Creek v. UACC Midwest, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2253 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

2519 Cited by: . Schrader v. Hamilton, 959 F. Supp. 1205, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5132 (C.D. Cal. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

959 F. Supp. 1205 p.1207

2520 Cited by: . Arvin v. Go Go Inv. Club, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18327 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

2521 Cited by: . Tool v. Nat'l Emple. Beneﬁt Servs., 957 F. Supp. 1114, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17683, 97 D.A.R. 5910 (N.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17683 Page 359 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2522 Followed by: . Tool v. National Emple. Beneﬁt Servs., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1996) {Caution}

957 F. Supp. 1114 p.1117

2523 Cited by: . SPARTA SURGICAL CORP. v. NASD, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13197 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4, HN5, HN7, HN9, HN11, HN18, HN24 {Positive}

2524 Cited by: . Stewart v. San Francisco Hous. Auth., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11874 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2525 Cited by: . Pena v. Downey S&L, Ass'n, 929 F. Supp. 1308, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8969, 96 D.A.R. 13461, 133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58219 (C.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

929 F. Supp. 1308 p.1312

2526 Cited by: . Pena v. Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58219 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 1996)

133 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58219

2527 Cited by: . Apatow v. Writers Guild of Am., 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2798 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 1996)

153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2798 p.2799

2528 Cited by: . Lombardo v. Broadway, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22369 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2529 Cited by: . Shutes--Wrightv. Blue Shield, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6828 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 Page 360 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2530 Cited by: . In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3149 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Caution}

2531 Cited by: . Jhamb v. California Physicians Serv., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1477 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Cited}

2532 Cited by: . Roessert v. Health Net, 929 F. Supp. 343, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2110 (N.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29 {Caution}

929 F. Supp. 343 p.348 929 F. Supp. 343 p.349

2533 Cited by: . Graphic Communs. Int'l Union, Local 501--Mv. Tongg Printing Co., Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22874 (D. Haw. Jan. 26, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22874

2534 Cited by: . Wilson v. Marchington, 934 F. Supp. 1187, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9991 (D. Mont. 1996){Warning}

934 F. Supp. 1187 p.1192

2535 Cited by: . Dielsi v. Falk, 916 F. Supp. 985, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4953 (C.D. Cal. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

916 F. Supp. 985 p.990

2536 Cited by: . Heichman v. AT&T, 943 F. Supp. 1212, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21291 (C.D. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN17, HN25{Positive}

943 F. Supp. 1212 p.1218

2537 Cited by: . Page 361 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Nevada v. Culverwell, 890 F. Supp. 933, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13291 (D. Nev. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN25{Cited}

890 F. Supp. 933 p.936 890 F. Supp. 933 p.937

2538 Cited by: . Hale v. Westside Transp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7985 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25

2539 Cited by: . Lerigo v. Novato Cable Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5119 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25

2540 Cited by: . Nunez v. Monterey Peninsula Eng'g, 867 F. Supp. 895, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19503, 94 D.A.R. 16654 (N.D. Cal. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

867 F. Supp. 895 p.901

2541 Cited by: . Hotaling v. Paciﬁc Inst. for Research & Evaluation, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14740 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18

2542 Cited by: . Hollinquest v. St. Francis Medical Ctr., 872 F. Supp. 723, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19902 (C.D. Cal. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

872 F. Supp. 723 p.725

2543 Cited by: . Davis v. Evans, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9683 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Cited}

2544 Cited by: . Wozniak v. City of Scottdale, 9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1471 (D. Ariz. July 11, 1994)

9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1471 p.1472

2545 Cited by: . Page 362 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Williams v. Dobard, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7242 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25

2546 Cited by: . Koutney v. Exxon Corp., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6702 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22

2547 Cited by: . Irwin v. American Interactive Media, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16223, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27304, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1366 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Cited}

31 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1366 p.1368

2548 Cited by: . Berger v. Paciﬁc Gas & Elec. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6650 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 1994)

2549 Cited by: . American Mitac Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3950 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25

2550 Cited by: . Sound Dev. v. Sherstone, Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6936 (D. Alaska Mar. 23, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17

2551 Cited by: . Lopez v. City of Chula Vista, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20766, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2173, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10115, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10126 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10126 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2173 p.2175

2552 Cited by: . Electric Wire Prods. Bay Assocs. v. Paciﬁc Retirement Plans, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18997 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Cited}

2553 Cited by: . Page 363 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

City of Ellensburg v. King Videocable Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20979 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

2554 Cited by: . Donald v. Golden 1 Credit Union, 839 F. Supp. 1394, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17764, 94 D.A.R. 1699 (E.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Analysis}

839 F. Supp. 1394 p.1396 839 F. Supp. 1394 p.1400

2555 Cited by: . Watson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 837 F. Supp. 146, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19288, 72 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5769 (S.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Caution}

837 F. Supp. 146 p.148

2556 Cited by: . Fuentes v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20789, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2654 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 1993)

147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2654 p.2661

2557 Cited by: . Alternative Sys. v. Connors, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15255 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2558 Cited by: . Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp. 1439, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15276, 27 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 125, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P8446 (N.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

828 F. Supp. 1439 p.1445

2559 Cited by: . Zandi--Dulabiv. Paciﬁc Retirement Plans, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 760, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8700, 93 D.A.R. 12436 (N.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

828 F. Supp. 760 p.762 Page 364 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2560 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Lyster v. First Nationwide Bank Fin. Corp., 829 F. Supp. 1163, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11958, 93 D.A.R. 11506 (N.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

Distinguished by: 829 F. Supp. 1163 p.1168 Cited by: 829 F. Supp. 1163 p.1166

2561 Cited by: . Fikru v. Home Sav. of Am., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7959 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5{Cited}

2562 Cited by: . Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit Dist., 823 F. Supp. 1519, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6452 (N.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17 {Cited}

823 F. Supp. 1519 p.1522

2563 Cited by: . Asyali v. Sheraton Palace Hotel, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5603 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2564 Cited by: . Barker v. Pick N Pull Auto Dismantlers, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 889, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5276 (E.D. Cal. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Positive}

819 F. Supp. 889 p.890

2565 Cited by: . Pilkington PLC v. Perelman, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19574 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

2566 Cited by: . Kibble v. Quigley, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3965 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9

2567 Cited by: . Page 365 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Grohs v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16837 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2568 Cited by: . Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F. Supp. 569, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21129 (N.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN25{Caution}

816 F. Supp. 569 p.571

2569 Followed by: . Vang v. Healy, 804 F. Supp. 79, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15394 (E.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25, HN29{Positive}

804 F. Supp. 79 p.81

2570 Cited by: . Donald I. Galen, M.D., Inc. v. McAllister, 833 F. Supp. 761, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14709 (N.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Positive}

833 F. Supp. 761 p.763

2571 Cited by: . Berg v. Leason, 793 F. Supp. 930, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10005, 92 D.A.R. 9738 (N.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

793 F. Supp. 930 p.932

2572 Cited by: . Maxxam Group v. Hurwitz, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5274 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Warning}

2573 Cited by: . Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 793 F. Supp. 925, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9157, 92 D.A.R. 9208 (N.D. Cal. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

793 F. Supp. 925 p.927

2574 Cited by: . Horton v. Toyota Technical Center, U.S.A., Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20046, 57 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1371 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25 Page 366 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2575 Followed by: . Horton v. Toyota Technical Ctr., 57 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1371 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 1991)

57 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1371 p.1372

2576 Cited by: . Puget Sound Elec. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Leaf Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21103 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Warning}

2577 Cited by: . Engleman v. Knudsen Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21743, 121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10176 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25, HN29{Analysis}

2578 Cited by: . Engleman v. Knudsen Corp., 121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10176 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 1991)

121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10176

2579 Cited by: . Kasky v. Perrier Group of Am., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21177 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

2580 Cited by: . Fabian Financial Services v. Kurt H. Volk, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 728, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10596, 91 D.A.R. 9709, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1218 (C.D. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

768 F. Supp. 728 p.732

2581 Cited by: . International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 125 v. Portland General Electric Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10870 (D. Or. July 30, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18

2582 Cited by: . Munar v. National Homecare Systems, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8274 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17{Caution} Page 367 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2583 Cited by: . Fillmore v. Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6640 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Cited}

2584 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Boyle v. MTV Networks, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 809, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8680, 91 D.A.R. 7942 (N.D. Cal. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11, HN18 , HN25{Positive}

Distinguished by: 766 F. Supp. 809 p.814 Cited by: 766 F. Supp. 809 p.813

2585 Cited by: . Devore v. Mesa, 783 F. Supp. 452, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20264 (D. Ariz. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17{Warning}

783 F. Supp. 452 p.455

2586 Cited by: . Operating Engineers Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. Jesswein, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1838, 55 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1421 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2587 Cited by: . O'Conner v. Hilton Hawaiian Village, 763 F. Supp. 1544, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18838, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2891, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10607 (D. Haw. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 , HN25{Cited}

763 F. Supp. 1544 p.1547

2588 Cited by: . Sayatovic v. United States, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15576 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17

2589 Cited by: . Morse v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14082, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26609, 1990--2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69116 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 Page 368 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2590 Cited by: . Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 734 F. Supp. 1542, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4207, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26556, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1512 (N.D. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14 , HN15, HN17{Caution}

734 F. Supp. 1542 p.1546

2591 Cited by: . Czechowski v. Tandy Corp., 731 F. Supp. 406, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1830, 12 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1171 (N.D. Cal. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

731 F. Supp. 406 p.409

2592 Cited by: . Mariner v. Korea Shipping West America, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11390, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39975, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 415 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

2593 Cited by: . California v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 785, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16121 (S.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Analysis}

726 F. Supp. 785 p.786

2594 Cited by: . Spear v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16352, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2755 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

2595 Cited by: . Spear v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18280, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1850, 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2823, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10413 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10413

2596 Followed by: . California v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 826, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16177 (S.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

720 F. Supp. 826 p.828 Page 369 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2597 Cited by: . Maynard v. Mare--Bear, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 795, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5725, 113 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11556 (D. Nev. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Cited}

712 F. Supp. 795 p.797

2598 Cited by: . Gaballah v. PG & E, 711 F. Supp. 988, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5249, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1039, 118 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56572 (N.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

711 F. Supp. 988 p.989

2599 Cited by: . Paciﬁc Merchant Shipping Asso. v. Aubry, 709 F. Supp. 1516, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2868, 1989 A.M.C. 1686, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 409 (C.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN23 {Warning}

709 F. Supp. 1516 p.1522

2600 Cited by: . Milne Employees Ass'n v. Sun Carriers, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 1028, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7039, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1802, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2116, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11825 (N.D. Cal. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25 {Caution}

714 F. Supp. 1028 p.1030

2601 Cited by: . Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry v. Franchise Tax Bd., 689 F. Supp. 1022, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6659, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2295 (C.D. Cal. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

689 F. Supp. 1022 p.1024 689 F. Supp. 1022 p.1025

2602 Cited by: . Intel Corp. v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co., 662 F. Supp. 1507, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5540 (N.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN17, HN18 {Warning}

662 F. Supp. 1507 p.1509 Page 370 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2603 Cited by: . Douglass v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 662 F. Supp. 147, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5909, 28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 691 (C.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

662 F. Supp. 147 p.150

2604 Cited by: . Douglass v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4736 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2605 Cited by: . Roberson v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 661 F. Supp. 416, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4357 (C.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

661 F. Supp. 416 p.423

2606 Explained by: . Arizona Laborers, etc., Local 395 Pension Trust Fund v. Nevarez, 661 F. Supp. 365, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9166, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2227 (D. Ariz. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN17{Positive}

661 F. Supp. 365 p.368

2607 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Hedges v. Legal Services Corp., 663 F. Supp. 300, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15103 (N.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

Distinguished by: 663 F. Supp. 300 p.301 Cited by: 663 F. Supp. 300 p.305

2608 Cited by: . Machinists Automotive Trades Dist. Lodge No. 190 v. Peterbilt Motors Co., 666 F. Supp. 1352, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7121, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 884, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2107, 109 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10713 (N.D. Cal. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN17, HN18{Analysis}

666 F. Supp. 1352 p.1355

2609 Cited by: . Sterrett v. Milk River Production Credit Asso., 647 F. Supp. 299, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22117 (D. Mont. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive} Page 371 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

647 F. Supp. 299 p.301

2610 Distinguished by: . Johnson v. Smith, 630 F. Supp. 1, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29308, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36344, 40 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1044, 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3320, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55742 (N.D. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN25{Cited}

630 F. Supp. 1 p.3 630 F. Supp. 1 p.4

2611 Cited by: . T.O.C., Inc. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, 631 F. Supp. 832, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29493, 1986--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P66977 (N.D. Cal. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN17, HN24{Warning}

631 F. Supp. 832 p.834

2612 Cited by: . Stokes v. Bechtel North American Power Corp., 614 F. Supp. 732, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18419 (N.D. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN18, HN24, HN25{Questioned}

614 F. Supp. 732 p.735 614 F. Supp. 732 p.737

2613 Cited by: . Langford v. Gates, 610 F. Supp. 120, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19589 (C.D. Cal. 1985) {Positive}

610 F. Supp. 120 p.122

2614 Cited by: . Adolph Coors Co. v. Sickler, 608 F. Supp. 1417, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20000, 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2825, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12189 (C.D. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Positive}

608 F. Supp. 1417 p.1421

2615 Cited by: . California Chamber of Commerce v. Simpson, 601 F. Supp. 104, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23592, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1096 (C.D. Cal. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

601 F. Supp. 104 p.106 Page 372 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2616 Cited by: . Baker v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 608 F. Supp. 1315, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22865 (N.D. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

608 F. Supp. 1315 p.1318

2617 Followed by: . International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Los Angeles, 611 F. Supp. 315, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15327 (C.D. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Caution}

611 F. Supp. 315 p.318

2618 Cited by: . OREGON v. CITY OF RAJNEESHPURAM, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18336 (D. Or. Mar. 23, 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN16, HN17, HN18, HN28

2619 Cited by: . Mobil Oil Corp. v. Long Beach, 578 F. Supp. 1197, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20331 (C.D. Cal. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Warning}

578 F. Supp. 1197 p.1199 578 F. Supp. 1197 p.1200

2620 Cited by: . Scope Industries v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 576 F. Supp. 373, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11069, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99666 (C.D. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN12, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

576 F. Supp. 373 p.374 576 F. Supp. 373 p.375

2621 Followed by: . Brinkin v. Southern Paciﬁc Transp. Co., 572 F. Supp. 236, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12818, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2245 (N.D. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN12 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN29{Cited}

572 F. Supp. 236 p.237 572 F. Supp. 236 p.238 572 F. Supp. 236 p.239

2622 Distinguished by: . Page 373 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Hardy v. National Kinney of California, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 1214, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13117 (N.D. Cal. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Questioned}

571 F. Supp. 1214 p.1215 9TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

2623 Cited by: . Miles v. Okun (In re Miles), 294 B.R. 756, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 456, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4248, 2003 D.A.R. 5421, 41 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 92, 50 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 235 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

294 B.R. 756 p.762

2624 Cited by: . Diagnostics Int'l, Inc. v. Aerobic Life Prods. Co. (In re Diagnostics Int'l, Inc.), 257 B.R. 511, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 1652 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

257 B.R. 511 p.514

2625 Cited by: . Leanders v. Yassai (In re Yassai), 225 B.R. 478, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1237 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Positive}

225 B.R. 478 p.483

2626 Cited by: . Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Franklin (In re Franklin), 179 B.R. 913, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 433, 27 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 20, 33 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 687 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

179 B.R. 913 p.919 10TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2627 Cited by: . Turgeau v. Admin. Review Bd., 446 F.3d 1052, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10476, 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 818 (10th Cir. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN25 {Cited}

446 F.3d 1052 p.1060

2628 Cited by: . Page 374 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 440 F.3d 1227, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 6121 (10th Cir. Wyo. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

440 F.3d 1227 p.1232

2629 Followed by: . Felix v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22270, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2473, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3146, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10397 (10th Cir. Okla. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

387 F.3d 1146 p.1155

2630 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: . Utah Animal Rights Coalition v. Salt Lake City Corp., 371 F.3d 1248, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817 (10th Cir. Utah 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Positive}

371 F.3d 1248 p.1265

2631 Cited by: . Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester, 358 F.3d 694, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1888 (10th Cir. Okla. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

358 F.3d 694 p.706

2632 Cited by: . Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester, 346 F.3d 1260, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21084, 2003--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P74183 (10th Cir. Okla. 2003) {Caution}

346 F.3d 1260 p.1272

2633 Followed by: . Woods v. City & County of Denver, 62 Fed. Appx. 286, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7228 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25{Analysis}

62 Fed. Appx. 286 p.289

2634 Cited by: . Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 318 F.3d 1231, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2704 (10th Cir. Wyo. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19 , HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive} Page 375 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

318 F.3d 1231 p.1235 318 F.3d 1231 p.1236 318 F.3d 1231 p.1238

2635 Cited by: . Simon v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Health Care Plan, 12 Fed. Appx. 839, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12842, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3022, 26 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1626 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

12 Fed. Appx. 839 p.841

2636 Cited by: . Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 54, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 336, 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 224, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10874 (10th Cir. N.M. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Caution}

236 F.3d 1200 p.1207

2637 Cited by: . Cisneros v. ABC Rail Corp., 217 F.3d 1299, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15703, 78 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40174, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 321, 164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2780, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10834 (10th Cir. Colo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

217 F.3d 1299 p.1302

2638 Cited by: . UFCW, Local 1564 v. Albertson's, Inc., 207 F.3d 1193, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 4093, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1541, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2903, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34022, 5 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1705 (10th Cir. N.M. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16 , HN17{Caution}

207 F.3d 1193 p.1196

2639 Cited by: . Sac & Fox Nation v. Cuomo, 193 F.3d 1162, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 25479, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6010 (10th Cir. Okla. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

193 F.3d 1162 p.1165

2640 Cited by: . Kane v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 145 F.3d 1218, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12681, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3150, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2323, 22 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1395, 98--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50491 (10th Cir. Kan. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution} Page 376 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

145 F.3d 1218 p.1220

2641 Followed by: . Ernzen v. Ernzen, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 344 (10th Cir. Kan. Jan. 9, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 344

2642 Followed by, Cited by: . Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26214, 12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 207, 132 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58162 (10th Cir. Okla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 97 F.3d 1336 p.1341 Cited by: 97 F.3d 1336 p.1339 97 F.3d 1336 p.1340

2643 Cited by: . Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22629, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2281, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1865 (10th Cir. Okla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18 {Warning}

95 F.3d 959 p.964 95 F.3d 959 p.965

2644 Cited by: . Resolution Trust Corp. v. Financial Insts. Retirement Fund, 71 F.3d 1553, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36987, 19 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2387, 96 TNT 13--9(10th Cir. Okla. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Cited}

71 F.3d 1553 p.1556

2645 Cited by: . Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30692, 66 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 285, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1135 (10th Cir. Okla. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6 , HN7, HN10, HN25{Caution}

39 F.3d 1105 p.1111

2646 Cited by: . Alexander v. Anheuser--Busch Cos., 990 F.2d 536, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6715, 17 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1425 (10th Cir. Okla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution} Page 377 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

990 F.2d 536 p.540

2647 Cited by: . State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Wyandotte Tribe, 919 F.2d 1449, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20612 (10th Cir. Okla. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

919 F.2d 1449 p.1450 919 F.2d 1449 p.1451

2648 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 846 F.2d 1258, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9080 (10th Cir. Okla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Warning}

846 F.2d 1258 p.1261

2649 Cited by: . United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus., Local No. 57 v. Bechtel Power Corp., 834 F.2d 884, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15897, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1555, 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2342, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10313 (10th Cir. Utah 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN12, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Caution}

834 F.2d 884 p.886 834 F.2d 884 p.887

2650 Explained by, Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Com. v. Graham, 822 F.2d 951, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8146 (10th Cir. Okla. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN29{Warning}

Explained by: 822 F.2d 951 p.954 822 F.2d 951 p.955 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 822 F.2d 951 p.957

2651 Distinguished by: . Federal Home Loan Bank Bd. v. Empie, 778 F.2d 1447, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25452 (10th Cir. Okla. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN11, HN17, HN24 {Caution}

778 F.2d 1447 p.1450

2652 Cited by: . Page 378 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Howard v. Group Hosp. Serv., 739 F.2d 1508, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19823 (10th Cir. Okla. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Questioned}

739 F.2d 1508 p.1513 10TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

2653 Cited by: . Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Steinbeck, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29905 (D. Colo. May 15, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29905

2654 Cited by: . Gilreath v. L--MFunding, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9462 (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9462

2655 Cited by: . Doe v. Archdiocese of Denver, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6272, 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 56 (D. Colo. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6, HN7 , HN11{Cited}

413 F. Supp. 2d 1187 p.1191

2656 Cited by: . Nielsen v. Archdiocese of Denver, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7394 (D. Colo. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN6, HN7, HN11{Cited}

413 F. Supp. 2d 1181 p.1183

2657 Cited by: . Varela v. Public Serv. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22694 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22694

2658 Cited by: . Bar J Sand & Gravel v. W. Mobile N.M., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39142 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24 , HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39142 Page 379 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2659 Cited by: . Roybal v. Los Alamos Nat'l Bank, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13800 (D.N.M. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Positive}

375 F. Supp. 2d 1324 p.1328

2660 Cited by: . Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3472, 35 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1278 (D. Kan. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

361 F. Supp. 2d 1280 p.1287

2661 Cited by: . Clark v. Meijer, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14621 (D.N.M. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

376 F. Supp. 2d 1088 p.1094

2662 Cited by: . Salman v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13949, 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5427, 2005--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50492 (D.N.M. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Cited}

375 F. Supp. 2d 1233 p.1237

2663 Cited by: . Lafayette v. Cobb, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28779 (D.N.M. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN27, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

385 F. Supp. 2d 1152 p.1158

2664 Cited by: . Schecher v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8571, 2004--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74431 (D. Kan. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

317 F. Supp. 2d 1253 p.1257

2665 Cited by: . Olsen v. Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28551 (D.N.M. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

380 F. Supp. 2d 1225 p.1230 Page 380 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2666 Cited by: . Peoples v. CCA Det. Ctr., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 475 (D. Kan. Jan. 15, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Warning}

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 475

2667 Cited by: . Flowers v. EZPawn Okla., Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24876 (N.D. Okla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

307 F. Supp. 2d 1191 p.1202

2668 Cited by: . Rios v. Aguirre, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14201 (D. Kan. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Cited}

276 F. Supp. 2d 1195 p.1198

2669 Cited by: . Russell v. Sprint Corp., 264 F. Supp. 2d 955, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8852 (D. Kan. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

264 F. Supp. 2d 955 p.959

2670 Cited by: . Burdett v. Harrah's Kan. Casino Corp., 260 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7759, 197 A.L.R. Fed. 731 (D. Kan. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17 {Positive}

260 F. Supp. 2d 1109 p.1112

2671 Cited by: . In re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25071 (D. Kan. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

247 F. Supp. 2d 1215 p.1223

2672 Cited by: . Stephenson v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24913 (D. Kan. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

240 F. Supp. 2d 1161 p.1163 Page 381 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2673 Cited by: . Cheyenne--Arapaho Gaming Comm'n v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15009 (N.D. Okla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

214 F. Supp. 2d 1155 p.1162

2674 Cited by: . Hoover v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11394 (D. Kan. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive}

205 F. Supp. 2d 1232 p.1236

2675 Cited by: . Uniﬁed Sch. Dist. No. 497 v. Long--Palcher, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10335 (D. Kan. May 30, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10335

2676 Cited by: . Browning v. MCI Worldcom Network Servs., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5591 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5591

2677 Cited by: . Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 204 F.R.D. 479, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21961 (D. Wyo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25 {Positive}

204 F.R.D. 479 p.483 204 F.R.D. 479 p.484

2678 Followed by, Cited by: . O'Donnell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyo., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18785 (D. Wyo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 173 F. Supp. 2d 1176 p.1182 Cited by: 173 F. Supp. 2d 1176 p.1181

2679 Cited by: . Page 382 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Collins v. County of Johnson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10561 (D. Kan. July 12, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10561

2680 Cited by: . Sandoval v. N.M. Tech. Group LLC, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18488 (D.N.M. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24 , HN25{Positive}

174 F. Supp. 2d 1224 p.1228 174 F. Supp. 2d 1224 p.1230

2681 Cited by: . Tullous v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19194 (D. Kan. Nov. 29, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19194

2682 Cited by: . Simon v. Cyrus Amax Minerals Health Care Plan, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392 (D. Colo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Positive}

107 F. Supp. 2d 1263 p.1265

2683 Cited by: . Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22365 (D.N.M. May 31, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Analysis}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22365

2684 Cited by: . Environmental Remediation Holding Corp. v. Talisman Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P. , 106 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13617 (D. Colo. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN29{Analysis}

106 F. Supp. 2d 1088 p.1092 106 F. Supp. 2d 1088 p.1093

2685 Cited by: . Oneok, Inc. v. Kansas Pipeline Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18355 (D. Kan. Oct. 27, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18355 Page 383 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2686 Cited by: . Sump v. Clay County Conservation Dist., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16954 (D. Kan. Sept. 21, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16954

2687 Cited by: . Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10125 (D. Kan. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

54 F. Supp. 2d 1042 p.1052

2688 Cited by: . California Cas. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Brinkman, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8539 (D. Wyo. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN18, HN24 {Positive}

50 F. Supp. 2d 1157 p.1162

2689 Cited by: . Briesch v. Automobile Club, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2389 (D. Utah 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Cited}

40 F. Supp. 2d 1318 p.1320

2690 Cited by: . Herrera v. Lovelace Health Sys., 35 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1475 (D.N.M. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

35 F. Supp. 2d 1327 p.1329

2691 Cited by: . Kansas ex rel. Stovall v. Home Cable Inc., 35 F. Supp. 2d 783, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21173 (D. Kan. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24 {Positive}

35 F. Supp. 2d 783 p.786

2692 Followed by: . Amoco Prod. Co. v. Aspen Group, 8 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10022, 82 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5279, 98--2U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50573 (D. Colo. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution} Page 384 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

8 F. Supp. 2d 1249 p.1252

2693 Cited by: . City of Hays v. Big Creek Improvement, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8214 (D. Kan. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

5 F. Supp. 2d 1228 p.1229

2694 Cited by: . George v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6395 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6395

2695 Cited by: . Converse County Sch. Dist. No. Two v. Pratt, 993 F. Supp. 848, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21768 (D. Wyo. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN24{Cited}

993 F. Supp. 848 p.854

2696 Cited by: . Watts v. Yellow Tech. Servs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19481 (D. Kan. Nov. 21, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Cited}

2697 Cited by: . Gaines--Tabb v. Mid--KansasCoop. Ass'n, 980 F. Supp. 1424, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19265 (D. Kan. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

980 F. Supp. 1424 p.1427

2698 Cited by: . Yellow Freight Sys. v. Adams Brush Mfg. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13491 (D. Kan. Aug. 5, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25

2699 Cited by: . Louis v. United States, 967 F. Supp. 456, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8798 (D.N.M. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

967 F. Supp. 456 p.459

2700 Cited by: . Page 385 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Whayne v. City of Topeka, 959 F. Supp. 1373, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5072 (D. Kan. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

959 F. Supp. 1373 p.1374

2701 Cited by: . Whayne v. City of Topeka, 959 F. Supp. 1370, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5069 (D. Kan. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

959 F. Supp. 1370 p.1371

2702 Cited by: . Whayne v. City of Topeka, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5073 (D. Kan. Mar. 10, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5073

2703 Cited by: . Gallegos v. San Juan Pueblo Bus. Dev. Bd., 955 F. Supp. 1348, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2097 (D.N.M. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24{Analysis}

955 F. Supp. 1348 p.1349

2704 Explained by, Cited by: . Roux v. Lovelace Health Sys., 947 F. Supp. 1534, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18218 (D.N.M. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

Explained by: 947 F. Supp. 1534 p.1543 Cited by: 947 F. Supp. 1534 p.1538

2705 Cited by: . Heckelmann v. Piping Cos., 904 F. Supp. 1257, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16999 (N.D. Okla. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN16, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Cited}

904 F. Supp. 1257 p.1260

2706 Cited by: . Tabron v. Colgate--Palmolive Co., 881 F. Supp. 512, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4416 (D. Kan. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited} Page 386 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

881 F. Supp. 512 p.514

2707 Cited by: . Ernzen v. Ernzen, 878 F. Supp. 190, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2565 (D. Kan. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

878 F. Supp. 190 p.191

2708 Cited by: . Oltremari by McDaniel v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitative Serv., 871 F. Supp. 1331, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17428 (D. Kan. 1994){Caution}

871 F. Supp. 1331 p.1335

2709 Cited by: . Oltremari by McDaniel v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitative Serv., 871 F. Supp. 1331, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18674 (D. Kan. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5 , HN7, HN9, HN10{Positive}

2710 Cited by: . Prudential Ins. Co. v. Thomason, 865 F. Supp. 762, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15258 (D. Utah 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

865 F. Supp. 762 p.767

2711 Cited by: . Meinders v. Refco Sec., 865 F. Supp. 721, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14695, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P8757 (D. Colo. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

865 F. Supp. 721 p.723

2712 Cited by: . St. David's Episcopal Church v. Westboro Baptist Church, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11263 (D. Kan. July 13, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

2713 Cited by: . Leroy Cattle Co. v. Fina Oil & Chem. Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4802 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Positive}

2714 Cited by: . Page 387 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Drake v. Cheyenne Newspapers, 842 F. Supp. 1403, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1243 (D. Wyo. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Analysis}

842 F. Supp. 1403 p.1406 842 F. Supp. 1403 p.1409 842 F. Supp. 1403 p.1410

2715 Cited by: . Andrean v. Secretary of the United States Army, 840 F. Supp. 1414, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18481 (D. Kan. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN25{Positive}

840 F. Supp. 1414 p.1420

2716 Cited by: . Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 838 F. Supp. 1501, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19510 (N.D. Okla. 1993){Analysis}

838 F. Supp. 1501 p.1508

2717 Cited by: . Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 838 F. Supp. 1501, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19518 (N.D. Okla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Warning}

2718 Cited by: . Wickman v. Canandaigua Wine Co., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14071 (D. Kan. Sept. 10, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2719 Cited by: . People ex rel. Hal D. v. Nine Mile Canal Co., 828 F. Supp. 823, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11327 (D. Colo. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 {Caution}

828 F. Supp. 823 p.826

2720 Cited by: . Zibell v. Brull, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8087 (D. Kan. May 20, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2721 Cited by: . Page 388 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

State ex rel. Stephan v. Finney, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8260 (D. Kan. May 12, 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited}

2722 Cited by: . Copeland v. MBNA Am., N.A., 820 F. Supp. 537, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6364 (D. Colo. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN20{Caution}

820 F. Supp. 537 p.539

2723 Cited by: . Nipper v. Garage Door Group, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17298 (D. Kan. Oct. 19, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Cited}

2724 Cited by: . McIntosh v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13900 (D. Kan. Aug. 14, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN24 , HN25{Cited}

2725 Cited by: . Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Darling, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4230 (D. Kan. Apr. 1, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

2726 Cited by: . National Mills, Inc. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2870 (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18 , HN24, HN25{Cited}

2727 Cited by: . Davis v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 746 F. Supp. 44, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12130 (D. Kan. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

746 F. Supp. 44 p.49

2728 Cited by: . City Bank & Trust Co. v. Coleman Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10094, 31 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2031 (D. Kan. July 5, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

31 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2031 p.2031 Page 389 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2729 Cited by: . Christian v. College Boulevard Nat'l Bank, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (D. Kan. June 25, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

2730 Cited by: . McGee v. Equicor--EquitableHCA Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3540 (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

2731 Cited by: . Carland v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 727 F. Supp. 592, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15732, 11 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2601 (D. Kan. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Caution}

727 F. Supp. 592 p.597

2732 Distinguished by: . Coparr, Ltd. v. Boulder, 735 F. Supp. 363, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16683, 31 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1949 (D. Colo. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Positive}

735 F. Supp. 363 p.365

2733 Cited by: . Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1399, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17334, 1991--1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69365 (D. Colo. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN17{Caution}

758 F. Supp. 1399 p.1406

2734 Cited by: . Darnall v. Federal Land Bank, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8835 (D. Kan. July 5, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7

2735 Cited by: . Foss v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 537, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320 (D.N.M. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN20, HN25{Cited}

705 F. Supp. 537 p.538

2736 Cited by: . Page 390 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Bonner Springs v. A.C. Kirkwood & Associates, P.C., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4979 (D. Kan. May 25, 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

2737 Cited by: . Eckhart v. Crofoot, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17533 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 1988)

2738 Cited by: . Board of County Comm'rs v. Shroyer, 662 F. Supp. 1542, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6203 (D. Colo. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

662 F. Supp. 1542 p.1543 662 F. Supp. 1542 p.1544

2739 Cited by: . MO--KANTEAMSTERS PENSION FUND v. CREASON, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23268 (D. Kan. July 2, 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5

2740 Cited by: . Oklahoma Bankers Asso. v. Home Sav. & Loan Asso., 625 F. Supp. 993, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15501 (W.D. Okla. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

625 F. Supp. 993 p.997 10TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

2741 Cited by: . Connolly v. City of Houston (In re Western Integrated Networks, LLC), 322 B.R. 156, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 2321 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Positive}

322 B.R. 156 p.163 11TH CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2742 Followed by: . Hansard v. Forsyth County, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17034 (11th Cir. Ga. July 6, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN12, HN17, HN24, HN25

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17034

2743 Followed by, Cited by: . Page 391 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18258, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 971, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28856, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1257, 72 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1365 (11th Cir. Fla. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

Followed by: 381 F.3d 1285 p.1290 Cited by: 381 F.3d 1285 p.1292

2744 Cited by: . Ervast v. Flexible Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 1007, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19664, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1169, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1321, 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1082 (11th Cir. Ga. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN29{Caution}

346 F.3d 1007 p.1012

2745 Distinguished by, Followed by, Explained by: . Household Bank, F.S.B. v. JFS Group, 320 F.3d 1249, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2154, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 286 (11th Cir. Ala. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2 , HN4, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Distinguished by: 320 F.3d 1249 p.1254 Followed by: 320 F.3d 1249 p.1256 Explained by: 320 F.3d 1249 p.1254

2746 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . BellSouth Telcoms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d 1270, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 358, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 173 (11th Cir. Ga. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17{Caution}

317 F.3d 1270 p.1292

2747 Cited by: . Anderson v. H & R Block, Inc., 287 F.3d 1038, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5978, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 433 (11th Cir. Ala. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 , HN17, HN18, HN24, HN25{Warning}

287 F.3d 1038 p.1041 287 F.3d 1038 p.1042 287 F.3d 1038 p.1044

2748 Distinguished by: . Page 392 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., 278 F.3d 1223, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 373, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 211 (11th Cir. Ga. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Warning}

278 F.3d 1223 p.1243

2749 Cited by: . Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., 245 F.3d 1306, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5206, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 559 (11th Cir. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

245 F.3d 1306 p.1308

2750 Cited by: . Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 59, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 303 (11th Cir. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

236 F.3d 1292 p.1310

2751 Cited by: . Harris v. Florida Elections Comm'n, 235 F.3d 578, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 243 (11th Cir. Fla. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

235 F.3d 578 p.579

2752 Explained by, Cited by: . Ayres v. GMC, 234 F.3d 514, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 30719, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 261, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9979 (11th Cir. Ga. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

Explained by: 234 F.3d 514 p.519 Cited by: 234 F.3d 514 p.518

2753 Cited by: . Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., 209 F.3d 1302, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7189, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 598 (11th Cir. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Warning}

209 F.3d 1302 p.1304

2754 Cited by: . Page 393 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Blab T.V., Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communs., Inc., 182 F.3d 851, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17939, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1118, 17 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 180 (11th Cir. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

182 F.3d 851 p.855

2755 Cited by: . Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 22610, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 88, 5 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P5--216,8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 979 (11th Cir. Ga. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

154 F.3d 1280 p.1282

2756 Cited by: . Whitt v. Sherman Int'l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 17481, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1704 (11th Cir. Ala. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN24{Caution}

147 F.3d 1325 p.1329

2757 Cited by: . De Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8241, 11 Fla. L. Weekly C 1267 (11th Cir. Ga. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Warning}

139 F.3d 1368 p.1373

2758 Cited by: . Engelhardt v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 139 F.3d 1346, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8221, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1315, 40 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1070 (11th Cir. Ala. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

139 F.3d 1346 p.1353 139 F.3d 1346 p.1353

2759 Cited by: . Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33459, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 808 (11th Cir. Fla. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

128 F.3d 1466 p.1472

2760 Cited by: . Page 394 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Kemp v. IBM, 109 F.3d 708, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6505, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 813, 20 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2814 (11th Cir. Ga. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

109 F.3d 708 p.712

2761 Cited by: . Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15246, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 32 (11th Cir. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Caution}

85 F.3d 1502 p.1504

2762 Followed by: . Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Gallagher, 43 F.3d 631, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1961, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1005 (11th Cir. Fla. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

43 F.3d 631 p.633

2763 Cited by: . City of Huntsville v. City of Madison, 24 F.3d 169, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16237, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 333 (11th Cir. Ala. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN29{Positive}

24 F.3d 169 p.172

2764 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Hill v. Marston, 13 F.3d 1548, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2595, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1191, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98070 (11th Cir. Ala. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25{Caution}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 13 F.3d 1548 p.1554 Cited by: 13 F.3d 1548 p.1549

2765 Cited by: . Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 999 F.2d 503, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20716, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 756 (11th Cir. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

2766 Cited by: . Page 395 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Hudson Ins. Co. v. American Elec. Corp., 957 F.2d 826, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6025, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 360 (11th Cir. Fla. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

957 F.2d 826 p.829 957 F.2d 826 p.830

2767 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by: . Brown v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13214, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1061 (11th Cir. Ala. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 , HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25{Questioned}

Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: 934 F.2d 1193 p.1197 Cited by: 934 F.2d 1193 p.1196

2768 Cited by: . Lazuka v. FDIC, 931 F.2d 1530, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11083 (11th Cir. Fla. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN17, HN18, HN20, HN24{Warning}

931 F.2d 1530 p.1534

2769 Cited by: . Legal Environmental Assistance Found. v. Pegues, 904 F.2d 640, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10532, 31 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1946, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20999 (11th Cir. Ala. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

904 F.2d 640 p.643

2770 Cited by: . Arnold v. Life Ins. Co., 894 F.2d 1566, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2760 (11th Cir. Ga. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Analysis}

894 F.2d 1566 p.1567

2771 Followed by: . Pruitt v. Carpenters' Local Union No. 225 of United Brotherhood etc., 893 F.2d 1216, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1346, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2578, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11901 (11th Cir. Ga. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

893 F.2d 1216 p.1219

2772 Cited in Dissenting Opinion at: . Page 396 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Sims v. Florida, Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 862 F.2d 1449, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 165, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20600 (11th Cir. Fla. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 {Caution}

862 F.2d 1449 p.1462

2773 Cited by: . Sams v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, etc., 835 F.2d 848, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 377, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1951, 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2341, 108 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10276 (11th Cir. Ga. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Warning}

835 F.2d 848 p.849

2774 Cited by: . Darden v. United States Steel Corp., 830 F.2d 1116, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14133, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2906, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10185 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

830 F.2d 1116 p.1119

2775 Cited by: . Xaros v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8525, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2289, 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3119, 107 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10001 (11th Cir. Fla. 1987){Caution}

820 F.2d 1176 p.1181

2776 Cited by: . Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Ingram, 811 F.2d 1464, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3007, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2873, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12239 (11th Cir. Ala. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN15, HN17, HN25{Warning}

811 F.2d 1464 p.1467

2777 Cited by: . Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 809 F.2d 1520, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1213 (11th Cir. Fla. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

809 F.2d 1520 p.1523

2778 Cited by: . Glasser v. Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, etc., 806 F.2d 1539, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36340 (11th Cir. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Caution} Page 397 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

806 F.2d 1539 p.1541

2779 Cited by: . Varnum v. Nu--CarCarriers, Inc., 804 F.2d 638, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33883, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1192, 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3068, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12134 (11th Cir. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

804 F.2d 638 p.645

2780 Cited by: . McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24527 (11th Cir. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN24, HN25{Questioned}

786 F.2d 1465 p.1476 786 F.2d 1465 p.1480 11TH CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

2781 Followed by: . Commercial Diving Servs. v. U.S. Envtl. Servs., L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28362 (S.D. Ala. May 2, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28362

2782 Cited by: . Dimension D, LLC v. True, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23924 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23924

2783 Cited by: . King v. Provident Bank, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17877 (M.D. Ala. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25

428 F. Supp. 2d 1226 p.1230

2784 Cited by: . McKinnes v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10147 (M.D. Ala. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25

420 F. Supp. 2d 1254 p.1259

2785 Cited by: . Levett v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14398 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited} Page 398 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14398

2786 Cited by: . Smith v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8560 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17{Positive}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8560

2787 Cited by: . AT&T Corp. v. Austal, USA, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7447 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7447

2788 Cited by: . Clements v. Preston, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34414 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 9, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34414

2789 Cited by: . Regency Hosp. Co. of S. Atlanta, L.L.C. v. United Healthcare of Ga., Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30011, 37 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1232 (N.D. Ga. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25

403 F. Supp. 2d 1221 p.1224

2790 Cited by: . Capece v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42039 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN25

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42039

2791 Followed by: . Cotton v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 391 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28358 (N.D. Fla. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Caution}

391 F. Supp. 2d 1137 p.1139

2792 Cited by: . Tidwell v. Coldwater Covers, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2767, 35 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1197 (N.D. Ala. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Cited} Page 399 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

393 F. Supp. 2d 1257 p.1261

2793 Cited by: . Bensman v. Citicorp Trust, N.A., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5631, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 487, 55 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (CBC) 956 (S.D. Fla. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

354 F. Supp. 2d 1330 p.1332

2794 Cited by: . Bolton v. McWane Cast Iron & Pipe Co., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13802 (N.D. Ala. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

328 F. Supp. 2d 1229 p.1234

2795 Cited by: . Transouth Fin. Corp. v. Murry, 311 B.R. 99, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11413 (M.D. Ala. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

311 B.R. 99 p.104

2796 Cited by: . York v. Ramsay Youth Servs., 313 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6055, 33 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1229 (M.D. Ala. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

313 F. Supp. 2d 1275 p.1281

2797 Cited by: . Adair v. Johnston, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25232 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 24, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN24{Caution}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25232

2798 Cited by: . Haun v. Don Mealey Imps., 285 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17814, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 55 (M.D. Fla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7 , HN17, HN18{Positive}

285 F. Supp. 2d 1297 p.1307

2799 Cited by: . Lewis v. Nextel Communs., Inc., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16060 (N.D. Ala. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited} Page 400 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

281 F. Supp. 2d 1302 p.1303

2800 Cited by: . Wilson v. Coman, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17320, 31 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2148 (M.D. Ala. 2003){Caution}

284 F. Supp. 2d 1319 p.1332

2801 Cited by: . Jackson v. Purdue Pharma Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6998 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6998

2802 Cited by: . Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14846 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14846

2803 Cited by: . Hill v. Bellsouth Telcoms., Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6555 (N.D. Ga. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Warning}

244 F. Supp. 2d 1323 p.1325

2804 Cited by: . Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17407 (N.D. Ga. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25{Positive}

220 F. Supp. 2d 1367 p.1369

2805 Cited by: . Sapp v. AT&T Corp., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16008 (M.D. Ala. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24{Analysis}

215 F. Supp. 2d 1273 p.1274

2806 Cited by: . Reynolds v. Con--Way Transp. Servs., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15162, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 490 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15162 Page 401 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2807 Cited by: . Lane v. Health Options, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17998 (S.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

221 F. Supp. 2d 1301 p.1304

2808 Cited by: . Hammerich v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11502, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2952 (M.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 {Cited}

209 F. Supp. 2d 1282 p.1284

2809 Cited by: . Bouie v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7754, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 275 (N.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Caution}

199 F. Supp. 2d 1259 p.1261

2810 Cited by: . Hope Ctr., Inc. v. Well Am. Group, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4690, 27 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2437 (S.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

196 F. Supp. 2d 1243 p.1247

2811 Cited by: . Norman v. S. Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4929, 10 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P10--250,83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41348, 147 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34670, 7 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1755 (M.D. Ala. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN18{Positive}

191 F. Supp. 2d 1321 p.1326

2812 Explained by, Cited by: . Household Bank v. JFS Group, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4547 (M.D. Ala. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN16, HN17, HN18{Warning}

Explained by: 191 F. Supp. 2d 1292 p.1301 Cited by: 191 F. Supp. 2d 1292 p.1299

2813 Cited by: . Page 402 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Transit Homes of Am. v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18819 (N.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

173 F. Supp. 2d 1185 p.1188

2814 Followed by: . Daughtry v. Birdsong Peanuts, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17111 (M.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN24, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

168 F. Supp. 2d 1287 p.1291

2815 Cited by: . Samples v. Conoco, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872 (N.D. Fla. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

165 F. Supp. 2d 1303 p.1308

2816 Cited by: . Rosenthal v. United Van Lines, LLC, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23560 (N.D. Ga. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

174 F. Supp. 2d 1331 p.1333

2817 Cited by: . Lucia v. Teledyne Cont'l Motors, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19825 (S.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN25, HN29{Cited}

173 F. Supp. 2d 1253 p.1263 173 F. Supp. 2d 1253 p.1267 173 F. Supp. 2d 1253 p.1272

2818 Cited by: . Lamm v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5017 (M.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN11, HN24{Caution}

139 F. Supp. 2d 1300 p.1303

2819 Cited by: . Shaner v. Fleet Bank, 132 F. Supp. 2d 953, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2973 (M.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

132 F. Supp. 2d 953 p.956 Page 403 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2820 Followed by, Cited by: . Bear MGC Cutlery Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 937, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6314 (N.D. Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 132 F. Supp. 2d 937 p.947 Cited by: 132 F. Supp. 2d 937 p.941

2821 Cited by: . Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Comm'n, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17875, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 78 (N.D. Fla. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Positive}

2822 Cited by: . Whitehall Wellington Invs., Inc. v. NASD, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18607, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91289 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18607

2823 Cited by: . Stark v. Health Partners S.E., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18249 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 20, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18249

2824 Cited by: . Watkins v. Trans Union,L.L.C., 118 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16339, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2557 (N.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24, HN27 {Positive}

118 F. Supp. 2d 1217 p.1219

2825 Explained by: . Carden v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21367 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21367

2826 Explained by: . Page 404 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Jones v. BankBoston, N.A., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14970 (S.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

115 F. Supp. 2d 1350 p.1352

2827 Cited by: . Hardy v. Welch, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20704 (M.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

135 F. Supp. 2d 1171 p.1177

2828 Cited by: . Hardy v. Welch, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19540 (M.D. Ala. 2000){Warning}

128 F. Supp. 2d 1331 p.1336

2829 Cited by: . Bishop v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12316 (M.D. Ala. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24 , HN25{Cited}

108 F. Supp. 2d 1323 p.1325

2830 Cited by: . Shelley v. AmSouth Bank, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11428 (S.D. Ala. July 24, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Caution}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11428

2831 Cited by: . Salter v. UOP Pension Plan, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10110 (S.D. Ala. June 28, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10110

2832 Cited by: . Thames v. Fisher, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8948 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 21, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN5, HN9{Positive}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8948

2833 Cited by: . Page 405 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Jaffe v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4689 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4689

2834 Cited by: . Peters v. Harper Group, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20763 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 10, 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20763

2835 Followed by: . First Guar. Bank & Trust Co. v. Reeves, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2878 (M.D. Fla. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

86 F. Supp. 2d 1147 p.1154

2836 Cited by: . Circle Redmont, Inc. v. Mercer Transp. Co., 78 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126 (M.D. Fla. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17 {Caution}

78 F. Supp. 2d 1316 p.1317

2837 Cited by: . Nicholson v. National Accounts, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22227 (S.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18, HN24{Caution}

105 F. Supp. 2d 1290 p.1293

2838 Cited by: . Charest v. Dortch, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18318 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18318

2839 Cited by: . Reeves v. Mayﬂower Transit, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21275 (M.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

87 F. Supp. 2d 1251 p.1253

2840 Cited by: . Page 406 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Wynn ex rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8419 (N.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

51 F. Supp. 2d 1232 p.1238

2841 Cited by: . Garrison v. Northeast Ga. Med. Ctr., Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10608 (N.D. Ga. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN24, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

66 F. Supp. 2d 1336 p.1340

2842 Cited by: . National Mining Ass'n v. Apfel, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9202 (N.D. Ala. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

97 F. Supp. 2d 1070 p.1080

2843 Cited by: . Carter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22584 (N.D. Fla. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN29{Caution}

61 F. Supp. 2d 1237 p.1240

2844 Followed by, Cited by: . Campbell v. GMC, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14575 (N.D. Ala. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 19 F. Supp. 2d 1260 p.1272 Cited by: 19 F. Supp. 2d 1260 p.1271

2845 Cited by: . Tetley v. Knollwood Park Hosp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16473 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 3, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24{Caution}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16473

2846 Cited by: . Graham Commer. Realty, Inc. v. Shamsi, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22741 (N.D. Ga. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

75 F. Supp. 2d 1371 p.1372 Page 407 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2847 Cited by: . Gray v. H.A.S., 18 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13803 (M.D. Ala. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

18 F. Supp. 2d 1320 p.1323

2848 Cited by: . Simmer v. North Am. Van Lines, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23140 (M.D. Ala. July 31, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Positive}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23140

2849 Cited by: . Greater Jacksonville Transp. Co. v. Jacksonville Port Auth., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10667 (M.D. Fla. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Cited}

12 F. Supp. 2d 1311 p.1313

2850 Cited by: . First Bank v. C & J Sapp Publ'g. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22105 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Analysis}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22105

2851 Cited by: . Stabler v. Contel Cellular, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20194 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24

2852 Cited by: . Patterman v. Travelers, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22775 (S.D. Ga. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

11 F. Supp. 2d 1382 p.1385

2853 Followed by: . Brand v. Robins Fed. Credit Union, 969 F. Supp. 778, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10352 (M.D. Ga. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN24{Analysis}

969 F. Supp. 778 p.779

2854 Cited by: . Page 408 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Butterworth v. Chances Casino Cruises, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23561 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25 , HN29{Positive}

2855 Cited by: . Levett v. American Heritage Life Ins. Co., 971 F. Supp. 1399, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12074 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24 {Analysis}

971 F. Supp. 1399 p.1401

2856 Cited by: . Hutto v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16386 (M.D. Ala. June 9, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN11, HN18

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16386

2857 Cited by: . Barnett v. Winn--DixieStores, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12521 (S.D. Ala. June 2, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2858 Cited by: . Means v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 963 F. Supp. 1131, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7202 (M.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

963 F. Supp. 1131 p.1133

2859 Cited by: . Rodgers v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23584 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

2860 Cited by: . Lewis v. Rhodes, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 633, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18596 (N.D. Ala. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Analysis}

968 F. Supp. 633 p.635

2861 Cited by: . Lewis v. Bice, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21597 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 19, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN24{Caution} Page 409 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2862 Cited by: . Murray v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18 , HN24{Caution}

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843

2863 Cited by: . Busby v. IRS, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2653, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1493 (S.D. Fla. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1493 p.1494

2864 Cited by: . Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A., 953 F. Supp. 1301, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1528 (N.D. Ala. 1997){Analysis}

953 F. Supp. 1301 p.1309

2865 Cited by: . Jairath v. Dyer, 961 F. Supp. 277, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20861, 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1462, 22 Am. Disabilities Dec. 401 (N.D. Ga. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN25{Warning}

961 F. Supp. 277 p.278 961 F. Supp. 277 p.281

2866 Cited by: . Nutt v. United States, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15628, 78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7007 (N.D. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Analysis}

78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7007 p.7010

2867 Cited by: . Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 954 F. Supp. 237, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20066 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

954 F. Supp. 237 p.240

2868 Cited by: . Hunter v. Beneﬁcial Nat'l Bank USA, 947 F. Supp. 446, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17715 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

947 F. Supp. 446 p.449 Page 410 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2869 Cited by: . Giddens v. Hometown Fin. Servs., 938 F. Supp. 801, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14203 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

938 F. Supp. 801 p.807

2870 Cited by: . Mellman v. Sprint Communs. Co., 975 F. Supp. 1458, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20979 (N.D. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11, HN17, HN25{Caution}

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20979

2871 Cited by: . Mellman v. Sprint Communs. Co., 975 F. Supp. 1458 (N.D. Fla. 1996){Caution}

975 F. Supp. 1458 p.1461

2872 Cited by: . Kenney v. Farmers Nat'l Bank, 938 F. Supp. 789, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13608 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN24 , HN25, HN29{Cited}

938 F. Supp. 789 p.791

2873 Cited by: . Roberts v. Beaulieu of Am., 950 F. Supp. 1509, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20359 (N.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Positive}

950 F. Supp. 1509 p.1516

2874 Cited by: . Hayduk v. UPS, 930 F. Supp. 584, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9019, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 32, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 (S.D. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11 {Caution}

930 F. Supp. 584 p.596

2875 Cited by: . Hayduk v. UPS, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 1996)

152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 p.2735 Page 411 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2876 Cited by: . Turpeau v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., 936 F. Supp. 975, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11803 (N.D. Ga. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

936 F. Supp. 975 p.980

2877 Cited by: . Pilkington v. United Airlines, 921 F. Supp. 740, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4197, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 680, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2307, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9075 (M.D. Fla. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Positive}

921 F. Supp. 740 p.748

2878 Cited by: . Sexton v. Principal Fin. Group, 920 F. Supp. 169, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3289 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

920 F. Supp. 169 p.172 920 F. Supp. 169 p.173

2879 Cited by: . Sampson v. Mercury Fin. Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22032 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 14, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Caution}

2880 Cited by: . Grace v. Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co., 916 F. Supp. 1185, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2037 (M.D. Ala. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17 {Caution}

916 F. Supp. 1185 p.1191

2881 Cited by: . Glenn v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1835 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 1, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN24, HN25{Cited}

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1835

2882 Cited by: . Vaughan Regional Medical Ctr. v. Smith, 916 F. Supp. 1142, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20310 (M.D. Ala. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7{Cited}

916 F. Supp. 1142 p.1147 Page 412 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2883 Cited by: . Southeast Fla. Cable, Inc. v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22413 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24 , HN25{Analysis}

1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22413

2884 Cited by: . Austin v. American Gen. Fin., 900 F. Supp. 396, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14258 (M.D. Ala. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Cited}

2885 Cited by: . Anderson v. Household Fin. Corp., 900 F. Supp. 386, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14243 (M.D. Ala. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25 {Positive}

900 F. Supp. 386 p.389 900 F. Supp. 386 p.398

2886 Cited by: . Southeast Fla. Cable, Inc. v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22415 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22415

2887 Cited by: . Burke v. Humana Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20744 (M.D. Ala. May 11, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

2888 Cited by: . Price v. ALFA Mut. Ins. Co., 877 F. Supp. 597, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2473 (M.D. Ala. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN11, HN24{Positive}

877 F. Supp. 597 p.599 877 F. Supp. 597 p.600

2889 Cited by: . Phelan v. Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4515 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17, HN18, HN25{Positive} Page 413 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2890 Cited by: . Campos v. Sociedad Aeronautica de Medellin Consolidada, S.A., 882 F. Supp. 1056, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20140, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 742 (S.D. Fla. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

882 F. Supp. 1056 p.1058

2891 Cited by: . Cook v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 174 B.R. 321, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16388 (M.D. Ala. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN10, HN17, HN19, HN25{Cited}

174 B.R. 321 p.324

2892 Cited by: . Union Iberoamericana v. American Airlines, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10483, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 308 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Cited}

2893 Cited by: . Bender v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 860 F. Supp. 803, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11010 (M.D. Ala. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN11, HN17{Analysis}

2894 Cited by: . Bender v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 860 F. Supp. 803, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11013 (M.D. Ala. 1994){Caution}

860 F. Supp. 803 p.804 860 F. Supp. 803 p.805

2895 Cited by: . Pierre v. Alabama Power Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9680 (S.D. Ala. June 30, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

2896 Cited by: . Rogers v. Rucker, 835 F. Supp. 1410, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19029 (N.D. Ga. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11{Caution}

835 F. Supp. 1410 p.1411

2897 Cited by: . Page 414 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Baptist Hosp. v. Timke, 832 F. Supp. 338, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13588, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 446 (S.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN25 {Questioned}

832 F. Supp. 338 p.340

2898 Cited by: . Mathews v. Anderson, 826 F. Supp. 479, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9585, 62 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 862, 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1188 (M.D. Ga. 1993){Cited}

826 F. Supp. 479 p.480 826 F. Supp. 479 p.481

2899 Cited by: . Ippolito v. Florida, 824 F. Supp. 1562, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13091 (M.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17, HN18{Positive}

824 F. Supp. 1562 p.1574

2900 Cited by: . Urbino v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 822 F. Supp. 1556, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7900, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 206 (S.D. Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Cited}

822 F. Supp. 1556 p.1560

2901 Cited by: . Sprint Corp. v. Evans, 818 F. Supp. 1447, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5356, 73 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 617 (M.D. Ala. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN18 {Analysis}

818 F. Supp. 1447 p.1452

2902 Cited by: . Storer Cable Communications v. City of Montgomery, 806 F. Supp. 1518, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16367, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27041, 1992--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P70031, Util. L. Rep. (CCH) P13899 (M.D. Ala. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN18{Warning}

806 F. Supp. 1518 p.1530

2903 Followed by: . Horne v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 793 F. Supp. 315, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11373, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 277, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 984, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2727, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10496 (S.D. Fla. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive} Page 415 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

793 F. Supp. 315 p.316

2904 Followed by: . Wilkinson v. Georgia Power Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12704, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1015, 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2735, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10475 (M.D. Ga. May 28, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Cited}

2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1015 p.1017 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10475 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2735 p.2736

2905 Cited by: . Stone v. Williams, 792 F. Supp. 749, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6346 (M.D. Ala. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN11, HN17{Positive}

792 F. Supp. 749 p.753 792 F. Supp. 749 p.754

2906 Cited by: . Thomas v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 1570, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7026 (S.D. Fla. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

763 F. Supp. 1570 p.1575

2907 Cited by: . Bahr v. National Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 584, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5943 (S.D. Fla. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25 {Caution}

763 F. Supp. 584 p.587 763 F. Supp. 584 p.589

2908 Cited by: . Dickinson v. Cosmos Broadcasting Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21659 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22, HN25, HN28 , HN29{Positive}

2909 Cited by: . Alvarez v. Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia, S.A., 756 F. Supp. 550, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 961 (S.D. Fla. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Caution}

756 F. Supp. 550 p.556 Page 416 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2910 Cited by: . Bryant v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 751 F. Supp. 968, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15936, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1120 (N.D. Ala. 1990){Caution}

751 F. Supp. 968 p.972

2911 Cited by: . King Provision Corp. v. Burger King Corp., 750 F. Supp. 501, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15264, 1991--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P69324 (M.D. Fla. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17{Cited}

750 F. Supp. 501 p.503

2912 Cited by: . Hudson Ins. Co. v. American Elec. Corp., 748 F. Supp. 837, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13519, 32 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1278, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 20456 (M.D. Fla. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18{Positive}

748 F. Supp. 837 p.839 748 F. Supp. 837 p.844

2913 Cited by: . Alabama Dep't of Environmental Management v. Southern Clay & Energy, 737 F. Supp. 80, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6536 (N.D. Ala. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5 {Cited}

737 F. Supp. 80 p.82

2914 Cited by: . GIW Industries, Inc. v. Trevor, Stewart, Burton & Jacobsen, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2946, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2290 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

2915 Cited by: . Scherer v. Laborers' Int'l Union, 746 F. Supp. 73, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17290, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2962 (N.D. Fla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10 , HN12, HN16, HN17, HN24, HN25{Caution}

746 F. Supp. 73 p.78 746 F. Supp. 73 p.79

2916 Cited by: . Page 417 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Jordan v. Reliable Life Ins. Co., 694 F. Supp. 822, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10018, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1146 (N.D. Ala. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

694 F. Supp. 822 p.829

2917 Cited by: . Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. Unidentiﬁed, Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 691 F. Supp. 1377, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7271, 1988 A.M.C. 2705 (S.D. Fla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

691 F. Supp. 1377 p.1393

2918 Followed by: . Cobb County v. Butler, 682 F. Supp. 50, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2332, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 702 (N.D. Ga. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

682 F. Supp. 50 p.51

2919 Cited by: . Sams v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, etc., 681 F. Supp. 1575, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2371, 110 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10801 (S.D. Ga. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

681 F. Supp. 1575 p.1577

2920 Followed by, Cited by: . Telecredit Service Center v. First Nat'l Bank, 679 F. Supp. 1101, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1312 (S.D. Fla. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN16 , HN17, HN20, HN25, HN29{Caution}

Followed by: 679 F. Supp. 1101 p.1105 Cited by: 679 F. Supp. 1101 p.1102 679 F. Supp. 1101 p.1106

2921 Cited by: . Pruitt v. Carpenters' Local Union No. 225 of United States Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15035, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3004 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

2922 Cited by: . Connecticut Sav. Bank v. Savers Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 670 F. Supp. 1549, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9365 (S.D. Fla. 1987){Cited} Page 418 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

670 F. Supp. 1549 p.1552

2923 Cited by: . Sullivan v. Mochen, 646 F. Supp. 216, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18611 (S.D. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

646 F. Supp. 216 p.218

2924 Cited by: . Rhymes v. Arrow Air, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 737, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25001 (S.D. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Questioned}

636 F. Supp. 737 p.741

2925 Cited by: . Motores, S.A. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank, 632 F. Supp. 645, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26705 (S.D. Fla. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN18{Cited}

632 F. Supp. 645 p.647

2926 Cited by: . Bohannon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 118 F.R.D. 189 (S.D. Ga. 1986){Positive}

118 F.R.D. 189 p.212

2927 Cited by: . Department of Banking & Finance v. U.S. Trust Corp., 610 F. Supp. 919, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19170 (S.D. Fla. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Cited}

610 F. Supp. 919 p.920

2928 Followed by: . Heidt v. Mid--StateFederal Sav. & Loan Asso., 594 F. Supp. 695, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22956 (M.D. Fla. 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18{Cited}

594 F. Supp. 695 p.697 11TH CIRCUIT --U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS

2929 Cited by: . E.S. Bankest, LLC v. United Beverage Florida, LLC (In re United Container LLC) , 284 B.R. 162, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1143, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 265, 40 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 78 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive} Page 419 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

284 B.R. 162 p.172 D.C. CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2930 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: . Republic of Venez. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 351 U.S. App. D.C. 108, 287 F.3d 192, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7685 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

287 F.3d 192 p.200 351 U.S. App. D.C. 108 p.116

2931 Cited by: . Borg--Warner Protective Servs. Corp. v. EEOC, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 323, 245 F.3d 831, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6726, 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40499, 85 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 673 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN9 , HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

245 F.3d 831 p.833 345 U.S. App. D.C. 323 p.325

2932 Cited by: . Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 334 U.S. App. D.C. 280, 166 F.3d 1243, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2061 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10 , HN17, HN25{Caution}

166 F.3d 1243 p.1247 334 U.S. App. D.C. 280 p.284

2933 Cited by: . Davenport v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 334 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 166 F.3d 356, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377, 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2321, 137 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10365 (1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

166 F.3d 356 p.365 334 U.S. App. D.C. 228 p.237

2934 Cited by: . Floyd v. District of Columbia, 327 U.S. App. D.C. 69, 129 F.3d 152, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 30462 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN7, HN11, HN17 , HN18{Caution}

129 F.3d 152 p.155 327 U.S. App. D.C. 69 p.72

2935 Cited by: . Page 420 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States, 303 U.S. App. D.C. 33, 999 F.2d 581, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20294 (1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN17 , HN19, HN24, HN25{Caution}

999 F.2d 581 p.585 303 U.S. App. D.C. 33 p.37

2936 Cited by: . Quarles v. Colorado Sec. Agency, Inc., 269 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 843 F.2d 557, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4418 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN25 {Cited}

843 F.2d 557 p.558

2937 Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by: . Rogers v. Platt, 259 U.S. App. D.C. 154, 814 F.2d 683, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25{Positive}

Cited in Concurring Opinion at: 814 F.2d 683 p.697 Cited by: 814 F.2d 683 p.687 814 F.2d 683 p.688

2938 Distinguished by: . Robbins v. Reagan, 250 U.S. App. D.C. 375, 780 F.2d 37, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25053 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Positive}

780 F.2d 37 p.43

2939 Cited by: . Tel--Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 233 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 726 F.2d 774, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25809 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Caution}

726 F.2d 774 p.804 D.C. CIRCUIT --U.S. DISTRICT COURT

2940 Cited by: . Bramwell v. Blakey, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32728 (D.D.C. May 24, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7 , HN9, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32728

2941 Cited by: . Page 421 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Sch. for the Arts in Learning Pub. Charter Sch. v. Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18997 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18997

2942 Cited by: . Cummings v. District of Columbia, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14903 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25{Caution}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14903

2943 Cited by: . Lytes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19420 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19420

2944 Cited by: . Lowery v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13319 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13319

2945 Cited by: . Turner v. District of Columbia, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12578 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN25{Analysis}

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12578

2946 Cited by: . Cephas v. MVM, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 17, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38666 (D.D.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25

403 F. Supp. 2d 17 p.23

2947 Cited by: . Greene v. AFGE, AFL--CIO,Local 2607, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19983 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Analysis}

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19983

2948 Cited by: . District of Columbia v. 109,205.5 Square Feet of Land, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7990 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited} Page 422 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7990

2949 Cited by: . Kroger v. Legalbill, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42885 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2005)

2950 Followed by, Cited by: . Int'l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v. Ins. Co. of the West, 366 F. Supp. 2d 33, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4949, 176 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3271 (D.D.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

Followed by: 366 F. Supp. 2d 33 p.38 Cited by: 366 F. Supp. 2d 33 p.37

2951 Cited by: . Bhagwanani v. Howard Univ., 355 F. Supp. 2d 294, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 775 (D.D.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

355 F. Supp. 2d 294 p.298

2952 Cited by: . Harding--Wrightv. D.C. Water And Sewer Auth., 350 F. Supp. 2d 102, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41 (D.D.C. 2005){Positive}

350 F. Supp. 2d 102 p.105

2953 Cited by: . Carabillo v. Ullico, Inc., 357 F. Supp. 2d 249, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27079 (D.D.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

357 F. Supp. 2d 249 p.257

2954 Cited by: . Bush v. Clark Constr. & Concrete Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10067 (D.D.C. June 6, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Analysis}

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10067

2955 Cited by: . Bush v. Clark Constr. & Concrete Corp., 267 F. Supp. 2d 43, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9392 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Positive} Page 423 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

267 F. Supp. 2d 43 p.45

2956 Cited by: . LaPoint v. Mid--AtlanticSettlement Servs., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5753 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN7, HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

256 F. Supp. 2d 1 p.3

2957 Followed by: . Borg--Warner Protective Servs. Corp. v. United States EEOC, 81 F. Supp. 2d 20, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42, 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P46269, 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1052 (D.D.C. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN18{Caution}

81 F. Supp. 2d 20 p.28

2958 Cited by: . Moore v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of the Nat'l Capital Area, 70 F. Supp. 2d 9, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17544, 24 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1850 (D.D.C. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

70 F. Supp. 2d 9 p.27

2959 Cited by: . Staggers v. Real Authentic Sound, 77 F. Supp. 2d 57, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19136 (D.D.C. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Caution}

77 F. Supp. 2d 57 p.70

2960 Cited by: . Ajemba v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22297 (D.D.C. July 13, 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN24, HN25{Cited}

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22297

2961 Cited by: . Systems Council EM--3v. AT&T Corp., 972 F. Supp. 21, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12058, 22 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1525 (D.D.C. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Positive}

972 F. Supp. 21 p.27

2962 Cited by: . Page 424 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Van Allen v. Bell Atlantic--Washington, D.C., 921 F. Supp. 830, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4586 (D.D.C. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Cited}

921 F. Supp. 830 p.832

2963 Cited by: . Thrift Depositors of Am. v. Ofﬁce of Thrift Supervision, 862 F. Supp. 586, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14374 (D.D.C. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Caution}

862 F. Supp. 586 p.589

2964 Cited by: . American Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees, Locals 2477 & 2910 v. Billington, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9498 (D.D.C. July 1, 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN15 , HN25

2965 Cited by: . Psychiatric Inst. of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 780 F. Supp. 24, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60, 14 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2355 (D.D.C. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

780 F. Supp. 24 p.29

2966 Cited by: . Hanson v. Greenspan, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17451 (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Cited}

2967 Followed by, Cited by: . Clark v. Superior Court of District of Columbia, 702 F. Supp. 4, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15550, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1787 (D.D.C. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN25, HN28, HN29{Positive}

Followed by: 702 F. Supp. 4 p.6 702 F. Supp. 4 p.7 Cited by: 702 F. Supp. 4 p.6

2968 Cited by: . Connors v. Marontha Coal Co., 670 F. Supp. 45, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9267, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2586 (D.D.C. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22 {Caution}

670 F. Supp. 45 p.48 Page 425 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2969 Cited by: . International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, etc. v. Association of Flight Attendants, 663 F. Supp. 847, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5680, 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2325, 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11030 (D.D.C. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN17 , HN18, HN19, HN20, HN24, HN25{Warning}

663 F. Supp. 847 p.850 663 F. Supp. 847 p.851 663 F. Supp. 847 p.852 FEDERAL CIRCUIT --COURT OF APPEALS

2970 Cited by: . Apotex, Inc. v. Thompson, 347 F.3d 1335, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21818, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN17, HN25 {Positive}

347 F.3d 1335 p.1342

2971 Cited by: . Golan v. Pingel Enter., 310 F.3d 1360, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23139, 2002--2Trade Cas. (CCH) P73857, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN18{Caution}

310 F.3d 1360 p.1367

2972 Cited by: . Pixton v. B&B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 10254, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Analysis}

291 F.3d 1324 p.1326

2973 Cited by: . Scherbatskoy v. Halliburton Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 652, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1461 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN25 {Analysis}

1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 652 52 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1461 p.1463

2974 Cited by: . Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, 153 F.3d 1318, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 20146, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1769 (Fed. Cir. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN9, HN10 , HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25{Warning} Page 426 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

153 F.3d 1318 p.1324

2975 Cited by: . Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25590 (Fed. Cir. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

124 F.3d 1462 p.1465

2976 Cited by: . Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., 109 F.3d 1567, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5467, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Caution}

109 F.3d 1567 p.1576

2977 Cited by: . Cedars--SinaiMedical Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32314, 94 D.A.R. 4072, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN25, HN28{Caution}

11 F.3d 1573 p.1578

2978 Cited by: . Additive Controls & Measurement Sys. v. Flowdata, 986 F.2d 476, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2040, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1798 (Fed. Cir. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 , HN11{Caution}

986 F.2d 476 p.477

2979 Cited by: . Aerojet--General Corp. v. Machine Tool Works, Oerlikon--Buehrle,Ltd., 895 F.2d 736, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1215, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11, HN17, HN18{Caution}

895 F.2d 736 p.738

2980 Cited by: . Speedco, Inc. v. Estes, 853 F.2d 909, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10952, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18, HN19, HN25 {Caution}

853 F.2d 909 p.912 853 F.2d 909 p.913 Page 427 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2981 Cited by: . Vink v. Hendrikus Johannes Schijf Rolkan N.V., 839 F.2d 676, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1575, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1728 (Fed. Cir. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9{Cited}

839 F.2d 676 p.678

2982 Cited by: . Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 836 F.2d 515, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17109, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN11 {Caution}

836 F.2d 515 p.517

2983 Cited by: . Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 822 F.2d 1544, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 365, 1987--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P67612, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN9, HN10, HN17, HN22, HN25{Warning}

822 F.2d 1544 p.1553 822 F.2d 1544 p.1554 822 F.2d 1544 p.1555

2984 Cited by: . Dubost v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Ofﬁce, 777 F.2d 1561, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 15514, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 977 (Fed. Cir. 1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN11 {Caution}

777 F.2d 1561 p.1565 FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT

2985 Cited by: . Nalette v. United States, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 214 (Fed. Cl. July 26, 2006)

2986 Cited by: . Federico v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 378, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 94 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11

70 Fed. Cl. 378 p.381

2987 Cited by: . Murphy v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 593, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 44 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

69 Fed. Cl. 593 p.599 Page 428 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2988 Cited by: . Bianchi v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 442, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 325 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

68 Fed. Cl. 442 p.448

2989 Cited by: . Beach v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 289, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 307 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

68 Fed. Cl. 289 p.293

2990 Cited by: . Georgeff v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 598, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 263, 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5931, 2005--2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50585 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Cited}

67 Fed. Cl. 598 p.602

2991 Cited by: . Pappas v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 1, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 200 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

66 Fed. Cl. 1 p.3

2992 Cited by: . Teichman v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 610, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 134 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Warning}

65 Fed. Cl. 610 p.614

2993 Cited by: . Zoeller v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 449, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 135 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

65 Fed. Cl. 449 p.453

2994 Cited by: . Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 12, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 311 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

63 Fed. Cl. 12 p.15 Page 429 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

2995 Cited by: . Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 38, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 310 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

63 Fed. Cl. 38 p.41

2996 Cited by: . Computervision Corp. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 299, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 251, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6020 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

62 Fed. Cl. 299 p.306

2997 Cited by: . United States Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 494, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 197 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

61 Fed. Cl. 494 p.497

2998 Cited by: . Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 198, 94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5379, 2004--2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50375 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11 {Positive}

61 Fed. Cl. 517 p.520

2999 Cited by: . Mexican Intermodal Equip., S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 55, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 160 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

61 Fed. Cl. 55 p.59

3000 Cited by: . Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 11 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

59 Fed. Cl. 497 p.500

3001 Cited by: . Holland v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 540, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 213 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

57 Fed. Cl. 540 p.551 Page 430 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3002 Cited by: . Newby v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 283, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 195 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

57 Fed. Cl. 283 p.290

3003 Cited by: . Hoffman v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 253, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 199 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

57 Fed. Cl. 253 p.256

3004 Cited by: . Ramirez v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 240, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 200 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

57 Fed. Cl. 240 p.245

3005 Cited by: . Barney v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 76, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 172 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

57 Fed. Cl. 76 p.81

3006 Cited by: . Folden v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 43, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 64 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

56 Fed. Cl. 43 p.49

3007 Cited by: . Gadd v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 438, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 44 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

55 Fed. Cl. 438 p.443

3008 Cited by: . Shibayama v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 720, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 374 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

55 Fed. Cl. 720 p.729

3009 Cited by: . Page 431 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

McNabb v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 759, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 345 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

54 Fed. Cl. 759 p.762

3010 Cited by: . First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 529, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 325 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Caution}

54 Fed. Cl. 529 p.537

3011 Cited by: . Sierra Pac. Res. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 366, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 322, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7501, 2003--1U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50113 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

56 Fed. Cl. 366 p.370

3012 Cited by: . Scarseth v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 458, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 107 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Analysis}

52 Fed. Cl. 458 p.465

3013 Cited by: . Frymire v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 450, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 5 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Cited}

51 Fed. Cl. 450 p.454

3014 Cited by: . Spodek v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 221, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Warning}

51 Fed. Cl. 221 p.224

3015 Cited by: . Heim v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 225, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 158 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

50 Fed. Cl. 225 p.230 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DECISIONS

3016 Cited by: . Page 432 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

17 F.C.C.R. 9614, 17 F.C.C.R. 9614, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 02--116{Caution}

17 F.C.C.R. 9614 p.9709

3017 Cited by: . 1 F.C.C.R. 390, 1 F.C.C.R. 390, 2 F.C.C.R. 1630, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 86--487,61 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1707

2 F.C.C.R. 1630 p.1630 OTHER FEDERAL DECISIONS

3018 Cited by: . Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Chicago Teachers' Union, 2000--01Lab. Arb. Awards (CCH) P3293 (Dec. 9, 1999)

2000--01Lab. Arb. Awards (CCH) P3293

3019 Cited by: . Elsaas v. County of Placer, 35 F. Supp. 2d 757, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3311, 99 D.A.R. 3839, 79 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 80 (D. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Positive}

35 F. Supp. 2d 757 p.759

3020 Cited by: . Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1273 (Sept. 10, 1991) {Cited}

15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1273

3021 Cited by: . Her Majesty v. Detroit, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20888 (1989){Cited}

19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20888 p.20892

3022 Cited by: . Ct. App. 1st Dkt. No. 91--1318

Ct. App. 1st Dkt. No. 91--1318

3023 Cited by: . Ct. App. 8th Dkt. No. 91--2821EM

Ct. App. 8th Dkt. No. 91--2821EM ALABAMA SUPREME COURT Page 433 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3024 Cited by: . Singer v. City of Alabaster, 821 So. 2d 954, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 416 (Ala. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Analysis}

821 So. 2d 954 p.958

3025 Cited by: . Ex parte Lewis, 571 So. 2d 1069, 1990 Ala. LEXIS 1036 (Ala. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

571 So. 2d 1069 p.1079 ALASKA SUPREME COURT

3026 Cited by: . Schaub v. K&L Distribs., 115 P.3d 555, 2005 Alas. LEXIS 86, 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10551 (Alaska 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Cited}

115 P.3d 555 p.560

3027 Cited by: . State v. F/V Baranof, 677 P.2d 1245, 1984 Alas. LEXIS 261, Alaska Adv. 2785 (Alaska 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Caution}

677 P.2d 1245 p.1252 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

3028 Cited by: . Carpenters So. Cal. Administrative Corp. v. El Capitan Development Co., 53 Cal. 3d 1041, 282 Cal. Rptr. 277, 811 P.2d 296, 1991 Cal. LEXIS 2621, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4756, 91 D.A.R. 7481, 13 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2593 (1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Questioned}

53 Cal. 3d 1041 p.1048 282 Cal. Rptr. 277 p.280 811 P.2d 296 p.299 CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

3029 Cited by: . MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1372, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 84, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 701 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

125 Cal. App. 4th 1372 p.1398 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622 p.643 Page 434 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3030 Cited by: . Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1413, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 766, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 816, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4652, 2004 D.A.R. 6368, 2004--1Trade Cas. (CCH) P74433 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 {Cited}

118 Cal. App. 4th 1413 p.1423 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 766 p.772

3031 Distinguished by, Cited by: . Durgom v. Janowiak, 74 Cal. App. 4th 178, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 748, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6552, 99 D.A.R. 8349 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN24{Positive}

Distinguished by: 74 Cal. App. 4th 178 p.186 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619 p.625 Cited by: 74 Cal. App. 4th 178 p.182 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619 p.622

3032 Cited by: . Warehouse, Processing Etc. Union v. Hugo Neu Proler Co., 65 Cal. App. 4th 732, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 814, 1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 639, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5703, 98 D.A.R. 7913, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2935, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10210 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN10, HN11, HN17, HN19, HN25 {Cited}

65 Cal. App. 4th 732 p.739 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 814 p.818

3033 Cited by: . Simon Levi Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet Pension Services, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 4th 496, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159, 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 427, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4172, 97 D.A.R. 6977, 135 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58379 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Cited}

55 Cal. App. 4th 496 p.502 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 p.162

3034 Cited by: . Varr v. Olimpia, 45 Cal. App. 4th 675, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 106, 1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 454, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3580, 96 D.A.R. 5692 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

45 Cal. App. 4th 675 p.679 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 106 p.108 Page 435 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3035 Cited by: . Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. King, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1365, 285 Cal. Rptr. 335, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1023, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7290, 91 D.A.R. 10986 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Analysis}

233 Cal. App. 3d 1365 p.1385 285 Cal. Rptr. 335 p.345

3036 Cited by: . Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. King, 231 Cal. App. 3d 885, 283 Cal. Rptr. 243, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 732, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5142, 91 D.A.R. 8077 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN9, HN10, HN11, HN17 , HN25{Warning}

283 Cal. Rptr. 243 p.252

3037 Cited by: . Seaview Industries, Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners etc., 215 Cal. App. 3d 497, 263 Cal. Rptr. 724, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1139, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56192 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4 {Warning}

263 Cal. Rptr. 724 p.727 263 Cal. Rptr. 724 p.728

3038 Cited by: . Moreau v. San Diego Transit Corp., 210 Cal. App. 3d 614, 258 Cal. Rptr. 647, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 476, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11816 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

210 Cal. App. 3d 614 p.621 258 Cal. Rptr. 647 p.650

3039 Cited by: . Giorgi v. Verdugo Hills Hosp., 210 Cal. App. 3d 252, 258 Cal. Rptr. 426, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 449, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 545, 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56349 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Warning}

258 Cal. Rptr. 426 p.439

3040 Cited by: . Page 436 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 204 Cal. App. 3d 955, 251 Cal. Rptr. 597, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 954, 10 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1129 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

204 Cal. App. 3d 955 p.960 204 Cal. App. 3d 955 p.963 251 Cal. Rptr. 597 p.599 251 Cal. Rptr. 597 p.602

3041 Cited by: . Barnick v. Longs Drug Stores, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 3d 377, 250 Cal. Rptr. 10, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 703, 121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56843 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Positive}

203 Cal. App. 3d 377 p.381 250 Cal. Rptr. 10 p.13

3042 Cited by: . Lembo v. Texaco, Inc., 194 Cal. App. 3d 531, 239 Cal. Rptr. 596, 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2065, 8 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2567 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 , HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

194 Cal. App. 3d 531 p.536 239 Cal. Rptr. 596 p.599

3043 Cited by: . Lembo v. Texaco, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 3d 91, 227 Cal. Rptr. 289, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1705 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

192 Cal. App. 3d 91 p.96 227 Cal. Rptr. 289 p.291

3044 Cited by: . Lembo v. Texaco, Inc., 182 Cal. App. 3d 299, 227 Cal. Rptr. 289 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986){Warning}

182 Cal. App. 3d 299 p.304

3045 Cited by: . Friday v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 188 Cal. App. 3d 117, 236 Cal. Rptr. 291, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1450, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55765 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN25{Caution}

236 Cal. Rptr. 291 p.293 Page 437 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3046 Cited by: . Friday v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 179 Cal. App. 3d 947, 225 Cal. Rptr. 89 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1986){Warning}

179 Cal. App. 3d 947 p.951 225 Cal. Rptr. 89 p.92

3047 Cited by: . Paciﬁc Airmotive Corp. v. First Interstate Bank, 178 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 224 Cal. Rptr. 233, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2728 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

178 Cal. App. 3d 1130 p.1136 224 Cal. Rptr. 233 p.236 UNPUBLISHED CALIFORNIA APPELLATE DECISIONS

3048 Cited by: . VARR v. OLIMPIA, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6155 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Warning}

3049 Cited by: . SYNTRON BIORESEARCH, INC. v. FAN, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 296 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN24, HN25{Warning}

3050 Cited by: . YOUVA VANG v. SAENZ, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2869 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17 {Warning}

OTHER CONNECTICUT DECISIONS

3051 Cited by: . Connecticut Steel Corp. v. Weber, 1996 Conn. Super. LEXIS 232 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY

3052 Cited by: . American Home Prods. Corp. v. Norden Lab., Inc., 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 262 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Analysis}

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

3053 Cited by: . Page 438 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Jacobs Wind Elec. Co. v. Department of Transp., 626 So. 2d 1333, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1556, 62 U.S.L.W. 2241, 18 Fla. L. Weekly S 513, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1763 (Fla. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Positive}

626 So. 2d 1333 p.1335 FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3054 Cited by: . Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Southpointe Pharmacy, 636 So. 2d 1377, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4584, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D 1087, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10 , HN24, HN25{Positive}

636 So. 2d 1377 p.1380 GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS

3055 Cited by: . Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 178 Ga. App. 467, 343 S.E.2d 492, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2545, 106 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P55715 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Warning}

178 Ga. App. 467 p.468 343 S.E.2d 492 p.493 HAWAI'I SUPREME COURT

3056 Cited by: . Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Haw. 330, 13 P.3d 1235, 2000 Haw. LEXIS 456, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3073, 143 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59208 (Haw. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN12 {Positive}

94 Haw. 330 p.343 13 P.3d 1235 p.1248 ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT

3057 Cited by: . Sagen v. Jewel Cos., 148 Ill. App. 3d 447, 499 N.E.2d 662, 1986 Ill. App. LEXIS 2933, 102 Ill. Dec. 105, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1469, 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2525 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1986){Cited}

148 Ill. App. 3d 447 p.452 499 N.E.2d 662 p.665 INDIANA SUPREME COURT

3058 Cited by: . Page 439 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353, 1996 Ind. LEXIS 150 (Ind. 1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9 , HN10{Caution}

672 N.E.2d 1353 p.1356 INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS

3059 Cited by: . Green v. Hendrickson Publrs., 751 N.E.2d 815, 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10{Warning}

751 N.E.2d 815 p.821

3060 Cited by: . National Can Corp. v. Jovanovich, 503 N.E.2d 1224, 1987 Ind. App. LEXIS 2382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN24{Warning}

503 N.E.2d 1224 p.1230 OTHER INDIANA DECISIONS

3061 Cited by: . Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 583 N.E.2d 214, 1991 Ind. Tax LEXIS 12 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991){Warning}

583 N.E.2d 214 p.218 IOWA COURT OF APPEALS

3062 Cited by: . Coontz v. Gordon Jewelry Corp., 439 N.W.2d 223, 1989 Iowa App. LEXIS 37, 117 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56437 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN29{Positive}

439 N.W.2d 223 p.225 KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS

3063 Distinguished by: . Deaton v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 17 S.W.3d 896, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

17 S.W.3d 896 p.899 LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS

3064 Cited by: . Page 440 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

Ouachita Parish Police Jury v. American Waste & Pollution Control Co., 606 So. 2d 1341, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 2931 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Positive}

606 So. 2d 1341 p.1346

3065 Cited by: . Wonycott v. Southern Business Machines, Inc., 595 So. 2d 723, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 518 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Positive}

595 So. 2d 723 p.727

3066 Cited by: . Prestridge v. Shinault, 552 So. 2d 643, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 2114, 114 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P56182 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN19, HN22 , HN28, HN29{Caution}

552 So. 2d 643 p.647 OTHER MASSACHUSETTS DECISIONS

3067 Cited by: . Fairneny v. Savogran Co., 1994 Mass. Super. LEXIS 451, 1 Mass. L. Rep. 570 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

3068 Cited by: . Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. Frederick & Herrud, 443 Mich. 358, 505 N.W.2d 820, 1993 Mich. LEXIS 2221 (1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN27, HN28 , HN29{Caution}

443 Mich. 358 p.374 505 N.W.2d 820 p.374 505 N.W.2d 820 p.827 MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

3069 Cited by: . Phinney v. Verbrugge, 222 Mich. App. 513, 564 N.W.2d 532, 1997 Mich. App. LEXIS 123 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17, HN18{Caution}

222 Mich. App. 513 p.522 564 N.W.2d 532 p.541 NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT Page 441 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3070 Cited by: . Smith Barney, Inc. v. Painters Local Union No. 109 Pension Fund, 254 Neb. 758, 579 N.W.2d 518, 1998 Neb. LEXIS 148 (1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17, HN18 {Analysis}

254 Neb. 758 p.762 579 N.W.2d 518 p.521 NEVADA SUPREME COURT

3071 Cited by: . Marcoz v. Summa Corp., 106 Nev. 737, 801 P.2d 1346, 1990 Nev. LEXIS 143, 106 Nev. Adv. Rep. 129 (1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Analysis}

801 P.2d 1346 p.1349 106 Nev. 737 p.741 NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION

3072 Cited by: . Maher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 239 N.J. Super. 213, 570 A.2d 1289, 1990 N.J. Super. LEXIS 71, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40790, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 585, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2235 (App.Div. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN25{Warning}

239 N.J. Super. 213 p.220 570 A.2d 1289 p.1292 NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS

3073 Cited by: . Godwin v. Mem'l Med. Ctr., 2001 NMCA 33, 130 N.M. 434, 25 P.3d 273, 2001 N.M. App. LEXIS 28, 40 N.M. B. Bull. No. 24 9, 40 N.M. B. Bull. 24 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Warning}

2001 NMCA 33 130 N.M. 434 p.439 25 P.3d 273 p.278 NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS

3074 Cited by: . Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of Dep't of Taxation & Finance, 80 N.Y.2d 44, 599 N.E.2d 656, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1595, 587 N.Y.S.2d 252, 15 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1691 (1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Analysis}

80 N.Y.2d 44 p.49 599 N.E.2d 656 p.658 Page 442 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

587 N.Y.S.2d 252 p.254

3075 Cited by: . Planned Consumer Marketing, Inc. v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 71 N.Y.2d 442, 522 N.E.2d 30, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 190, 527 N.Y.S.2d 185, 9 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1796 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29{Caution}

71 N.Y.2d 442 p.448 522 N.E.2d 30 p.34 527 N.Y.S.2d 185 p.189

3076 Cited by: . Sasso v. Vachris, 66 N.Y.2d 28, 484 N.E.2d 1359, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16996, 494 N.Y.S.2d 856, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2393 (1985) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Questioned}

66 N.Y.2d 28 p.32 484 N.E.2d 1359 p.1361 494 N.Y.S.2d 856 p.858

3077 Cited by: . Retail Shoe Health Com. v. Reminick, 62 N.Y.2d 173, 464 N.E.2d 974, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4273, 476 N.Y.S.2d 276, 6 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1606 (1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Caution}

62 N.Y.2d 173 p.173 464 N.E.2d 974 p.978 NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APP. DIV.

3078 Cited by: . Tuﬁno v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council & Hotel Ass'ns Local 6, 223 A.D.2d 245, 646 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996){Caution}

223 A.D.2d 245 p.249 646 N.Y.S.2d 799 p.802

3079 Cited by: . Sasso v. Vachris, 106 A.D.2d 132, 482 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1984) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Warning}

106 A.D.2d 132 p.136 482 N.Y.S.2d 875 p.877 NEW YORK Page 443 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3080 Cited by: . N.Y. Dkt. No. 61

N.Y. Dkt. No. 61 OTHER NEW YORK DECISIONS

3081 Cited by: . Delta--SonicCarwash Sys. v. Building Trades Council, 168 Misc. 2d 672, 640 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 686, 132 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10, HN17{Cited}

168 Misc. 2d 672 p.675 640 N.Y.S.2d 368

3082 Cited by: . Montner v. Interfaith Medical Ctr., 157 Misc. 2d 583, 596 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 132 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19 , HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

157 Misc. 2d 583 p.591 596 N.Y.S.2d 975 p.980

3083 Cited by: . Arnold v. Arnold, 154 Misc. 2d 715, 586 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1992 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 306 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29{Cited}

154 Misc. 2d 715 p.717 586 N.Y.S.2d 449 p.450

3084 Cited by: . People v. Art Steel Co., 133 Misc. 2d 1001, 509 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3017 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29 {Caution}

133 Misc. 2d 1001 p.1009 509 N.Y.S.2d 715 p.720 OHIO SUPREME COURT

3085 Cited by: . Richland Hospital, Inc. v. Ralyon, 33 Ohio St. 3d 87, 516 N.E.2d 1236, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 422 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28, HN29 {Caution}

33 Ohio St. 3d 87 p.97 516 N.E.2d 1236 p.1246 Page 444 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

OHIO COURT OF APPEALS

3086 Cited by: . Cunningham v. Aultcare Corp., 2003 Ohio 3085, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 2765, 30 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 2546 (Ohio Ct. App., Stark County June 9, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN22{Cited}

2003 Ohio 3085

3087 Cited by: . Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App. 3d 103, 750 N.E.2d 176, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1 (Ohio Ct. App., Lorain County 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN9, HN10, HN11 , HN17, HN18{Caution}

141 Ohio App. 3d 103 p.110 750 N.E.2d 176 p.181

3088 Cited by: . Spiros v. GMC, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 9087 (Ohio Ct. App., Lorain County Oct. 7, 1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10

OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT

3089 Cited by: . Reeds v. Walker, 2006 OK 43, 2006 Okla. LEXIS 41 (Okla. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN10 , HN17, HN24, HN25

2006 OK 43 PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT

3090 Cited by: . Adam v. Benjamin, 426 Pa. Super. 543, 627 A.2d 1186, 1993 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2140, 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2479, 2 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 595 (1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Caution}

627 A.2d 1186 p.1190 426 Pa. Super. 543 p.550

3091 Cited by: . Engle v. West Penn Power Co., 366 Pa. Super. 104, 530 A.2d 913, 1987 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8960 (1987) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7, HN17, HN18{Positive}

366 Pa. Super. 104 p.106 530 A.2d 913 p.914 OTHER RHODE ISLAND DECISIONS Page 445 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3092 Cited by: . FURIA v. RHODE ISLAND COMM'N FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1988 R.I. Super. LEXIS 67 (1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN29

SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

3093 Cited by: . Maxey v. R.L. Bryan Co., 295 S.C. 334, 368 S.E.2d 466, 1988 S.C. App. LEXIS 62, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26281 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25 {Analysis}

295 S.C. 334 p.337 368 S.E.2d 466 p.467 TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS

3094 Harmonized by: . Martin v. Catterson, 981 S.W.2d 222, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 2433, 98:16 Tex. Civil Op. Serv. 33 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1998) LexisNexis Headnotes HN18{Warning}

981 S.W.2d 222 p.226

3095 Cited by: . Castillo v. Neeley's TBA Dealer Supply, Inc., 776 S.W.2d 290, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 2052 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1989) LexisNexis Headnotes HN19, HN22, HN28 , HN29{Positive}

776 S.W.2d 290 p.292 WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT

3096 Cited by: . Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Eggert, 129 Wn.2d 17, 914 P.2d 737, 1996 Wash. LEXIS 113 (1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN17{Caution}

129 Wn.2d 17 p.23 914 P.2d 737 p.740 WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS

3097 Cited by: . Swinford v. Russ Dunmire Oldsmobile, 82 Wn. App. 401, 918 P.2d 186, 1996 Wash. App. LEXIS 243, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 419, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2500 (1996) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

82 Wn. App. 401 p.412 918 P.2d 186 p.192 Page 446 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME CT. OF APPEALS

3098 Cited by: . Tolliver v. Kroger Co., 201 W. Va. 509, 498 S.E.2d 702, 1997 W. Va. LEXIS 247, 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2915 (1997){Caution}

201 W. Va. 509 p.519 498 S.E.2d 702 p.712

3099 Cited by: . Satterﬁeld v. Claypole, 190 W. Va. 384, 438 S.E.2d 564, 1993 W. Va. LEXIS 188, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2758 (1993) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5, HN10, HN17 , HN25{Cited}

190 W. Va. 384 p.388 438 S.E.2d 564 p.568 WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS

3100 Cited by: . Universal Foods Corp. v. Labor & Industry Review Com., 161 Wis. 2d 1, 467 N.W.2d 793, 1991 Wisc. App. LEXIS 201, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2353, 123 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P57094 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN25{Positive}

161 Wis. 2d 1 p.11 467 N.W.2d 793 p.797 PUERTO RICO SUPREME COURT

3101 Cited by: . Manuel R. ("Manny") Suarez Jimenez; y Otros Demandantes--Peticionarios v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones y Otros Demandados--Recurridos , 2004 TSPR 182, 2004 PR Sup. LEXIS 176 (2004){Cited}

3102 Cited in Concurring Opinion at: . Manuel R. ("Manny") Suarez Jimenez; ets als Demandantes/Peticionarios v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones; Aurelio Gracia, Presidente; ets als Demandados/Recurridos , 2004 TSPR No. 179, 2004 PR Sup. LEXIS 173, 2004 Juris P.R. No. 178 (2004) {Analysis}

2004 Juris P.R. No. 178

3103 Cited by: . BONAFONT v. AMERICAN EAGLE, 143 P.R. Dec. 374, 1997 PR Sup. LEXIS 497, 1997 Juris P.R. No. 86 (1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN11{Positive}

ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 9 Citing Statutes ) Page 447 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3104 USCS Const. Art. III, @ 2, Cl 1 .

3105 28 USCS @ 1331 .

3106 28 USCS @ 1338 .

3107 28 USCS @ 1441 .

3108 29 USCS @ 1001 .

3109 29 USCS @ 1002 .

3110 29 USCS @ 1056 .

3111 29 USCS @ 1132 .

3112 43 USCS @ 661 .

LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 370 Citing References )

3113 ARTICLE: Will the Supreme Court Finally Eliminate ERISA Preemption?, 13 Ann. Health L. 427 (2004) .

3114 NOTE: Not Just Old Wine in New Bottles: Kentucky Ass'n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller n1 Bottles a New . Test for State Regulation of Insurance, 38 Akron L. Rev. 253 (2005)

38 Akron L. Rev. 253 p.253

3115 ARTICLE: Managed Care Organizations Manage to Escape Liability: Why Issues of Quantity vs. Quality . Lead to ERISA's Inequitable Preemption of Claims, 34 Akron L. Rev. 571 (2001)

34 Akron L. Rev. 571 p.571 Page 448 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3116 ARTICLE: Preemption Under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act: If It Looks Like a Securities . Fraud Claim and Acts Like a Securities Fraud Claim, Is It a Securities Fraud Claim? , 56 Ala. L. Rev. 325 (2004)

56 Ala. L. Rev. 325 p.325

3117 ARTICLE: PREEMPTION IN AUTOMOTIVE CRASHWORTHINESS CASES: POST--GEIERV. AMERICAN . HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, 67 Ala. Law. 118 (2006)

67 Ala. Law. 118 p.118

3118 ARTICLE: Bankruptcy Code 1114: Congress' Empty Response To The Retiree Plight. * , 67 Am. Bank. L.J. . 17 (1993)

3119 ARTICLE: Retiree Beneﬁts Bankruptcy Protection Act Of 1988: Welfare Beneﬁts In Need Of Reform, 65 Am. . Bank. L.J. 427 (1991)

3120 ARTICLE: Home Court, Outpost Court: Reconciling Bankruptcy Case Control With Venue Flexibility in . Proceedings., 62 Am. Bank. L.J. 37 (1988)

3121 INTERNATIONAL DECISION: United States v. Locke. 120 S.Ct. 1135. Supreme Court of the United States, . March 6, 2000, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 745 (2000)

3122 ARTICLE: ERISA Preemption and Regulation of Managed Health Care:The Case for Managed . Federalism,23 Am. J. L. and Med. 251 (1997)

3123 A REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . FEDERAL CIRCUIT: FOREWORD: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND THE SUPREME COURT, 55 Am. U.L. Rev. 821 (2006)

3124 ARTICLE: RECRAFTING THE JURISDICTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION . UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS, 55 Am. U.L. Rev. 621 (2006)

55 Am. U.L. Rev. 621 p.621

3125 AREA SUMMARY: 2002 PATENT LAW DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 52 Am. U.L. Rev. 891 . (2003)

52 Am. U.L. Rev. 891 p.891

3126 ARTICLE: JUDICIAL STANDARD OF REVIEW IN ERISA BENEFIT CLAIM CASES, 50 Am. U.L. Rev. . 1083 (2001)

50 Am. U.L. Rev. 1083 p.1083 Page 449 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3127 AREA SUMMARY: SURVEY OF PATENT LAW DECISIONS IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT: 1998 IN REVIEW . *, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 1319 (1999)

48 Am. U.L. Rev. 1319 p.1319

3128 A REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . FEDERAL CIRCUIT: ARTICLE: CHRISTIANSON v. COLT INDUSTRIES OPERATING CORP.: THE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL QUESTION PRECEDENT TO FEDERAL CIRCUIT JURISDICTION DECISIONS, 45 Am. U.L. Rev. 1835 (1996)

3129 A REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . FEDERAL CIRCUIT: AREA SUMMARY: A YEAR IN REVIEW: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S PATENT DECISIONS OF 1993., 43 Am. U.L. Rev. 1259 (1994)

3130 ARTICLE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FORUM CHOICES IN REMOVAL CASES UNDER DIVERSITY . AND FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION. * , 41 Am. U.L. Rev. 369 (1992)

3131 A REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . FEDERAL CIRCUIT: AREA SUMMARY: SIGNIFICANT PATENT DECISIONS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT--1988. *, 38 Am. U.L. Rev. 1303 (1989)

3132 ARTICLE: ERISA: EXTRACONTRACTUAL DAMAGES MANDATED FOR BENEFIT CLAIMS ACTIONS, 36 . Ariz. L. Rev. 611 (1994)

3133 NOTE & COMMENT: GAMING CORP. v. DORSEY & WHITNEY: Does IGRA Completely Preempt State . Regulation of Gaming on Indian Land? , 29 Ariz. St. L.J. 323 (1997)

3134 ARTICLE: THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: UNDERSTANDING THE RULES OF AGGREGATION, 26 . Ariz. St. L.J. 925 (1994)

3135 Article: "Much to Gain and Nothing to Lose": Implications of the History of the Declaratory Judgment for . the (b)(2) Class Action*, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 767 (2006)

58 Ark. L. Rev. 767 p.767

3136 COMMENT: ALASKA V. F/V BARANOF: STATE REGULATION BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL SEA AFTER . THE MAGNUSON ACT, 13 B. C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev 281 (1986)

3137 NOTE: RULE 60(B): A RULE SUITABLE FOR A SUA SPONTE MOTION, 15 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 153 (2005) .

3138 NOTE: HOLMES GROUP, INC. V. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC.: NECROMANCY, . JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, AND THE WELL--PLEADEDCOMPLAINT RULE, 84 B.U.L. Rev. 1103 (2004) Page 450 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

84 B.U.L. Rev. 1103 p.1103

3139 ARTICLE: THE DISCORD BETWEEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT . RIGHTS: THEORETICAL ORIGINS AND A PROPOSED RECONCILIATION, 77 B.U.L. Rev. 687 (1997)

77 B.U.L. Rev. 687 p.687

3140 ARTICLE: PREEMPTION PATHOLOGIES AND CIVIC REPUBLICAN VALUES., 71 B.U.L. Rev. 687 (1991) .

71 B.U.L. Rev. 687 p.687

3141 NOTE: UNRAVELLING THE "PENDENT PARTY" CONTROVERSY: A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO . PENDENT AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION., 64 B.U.L. Rev. 895 (1984)

64 B.U.L. Rev. 895 p.895

3142 NOTES & COMMENTS: On Your Mark, Get Set, Go! A New Race to the Courthouse Sponsored by Holmes . Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 2003 BYU L. Rev. 331 (2003)

2003 BYU L. Rev. 331 p.331

3143 COMMENT: Erisa Preemption of State Exemption Laws: the Effects in Bankruptcy, 7 Bank. Dev. J. 615 . (1990)

3144 NOTE: Egelhoff v. Egelhoff: The Supreme Court's Latest Attempt to Clarify ERISA Preemption and the . Decision's Effect on Texas State Law, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 503 (2002)

54 Baylor L. Rev. 503 p.503

3145 COMMENT: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PROVIDES A REPRODUCIBLE FRAMEWORK FOR THE . APPLICATION OF THE COMPLETE PREEMPTION DOCTRINE, 50 Baylor L. Rev. 205 (1998)

3146 STEFAN A. RIESENFELD SYMPOSIUM 2001: World War II Compensation and Foreign Relations . Federalism, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 282 (2002)

3147 ARTICLE: Preserving Unionized Employees' Individual Employment Rights: An Argument Against Section . 301 Preemption, 17 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 1 (1996)

3148 ARTICLE: Title VII Arbitration, 16 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 209 (1995) .

3149 ARTICLE: Struggling Through the Thicket: Section 301 and the Washington Supreme Court, 15 Berkeley J. . Emp. & Lab. L. 106 (1994) Page 451 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3150 I. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: B. PATENT: 2. FEDERAL CIRCUIT JURISDICTION: Holmes Group, Inc. . v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 141 (2003)

3151 TWENTY--SECONDANNUAL CARL A. WARNS, JR. LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW INSTITUTE: . CONTRACT FORMATION ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION, 44 Brandeis L.J. 415 (2006)

44 Brandeis L.J. 415 p.415

3152 ERISA PREEMPTION: A MOVE TOWARDS DEFEDERALIZING CLAIMS FOR PATIENTS' RIGHTS, 42 . Brandeis L.J. 529 (2004)

3153 NOTE: TRILOGY OF CASES NARROW SCOPE OF ERISA PREEMPTION: SURVIVAL OF STATE LAW . CLAIMS REGARDING NEGLIGENT QUALITY OF CARE UNDER ERISA PLANS IN LIGHT OF TRAVELERS, DUKES, AND HERDRICH, 40 Brandeis L.J. 827 (2002)

3154 COMMENT: SWIMMING THE MURKY WATERS: THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND SUBJECT--MATTER . JURISDICTION IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES FROM T.B. HARMS V. ELISCU TO SCHOENBERG V. SHAPOLSKY PUBLISHERS, INC. , 42 Buff. L. Rev. 119 (1994)

42 Buff. L. Rev. 119 p.119

3155 ARTICLE: Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 1639 (2004) .

92 Cal. L. Rev. 1639 p.1639

3156 SYMPOSIUM: Do You Want to Know a Trade Secret? How Article 2B Will Make Licensing Trade Secrets . Easier (But Innovation More Difﬁcult), 87 Cal. L. Rev. 191 (1999)

3157 COMMENT: Complete Preemption --Removing the Mystery from Removal, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 363 (1998) .

3158 SYMPOSIUM: NEW PERSPECTIVES IN THE LAW OF DEFAMATION: Declaratory Judgments for Libel: A . Better Alternative., 74 Cal. L. Rev. 847 (1986)

3159 ARTICLE: THE PRACTICAL ENTRY AND UTILITY OF A LEGAL--MANAGERIAL FRAMEWORK . WITHOUT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW,24 Campbell L. Rev. 131 (2002)

3160 ARTICLE: ERISA, PREEMPTION AND COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL HEALTH CARE: A CALL FOR . "COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM" TO PRESERVE THE STATES' ROLE IN FORMULATING HEALTH CARE POLICY , 16 Campbell L. Rev. 405 (1994) Page 452 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3161 ARTICLES: RESOLVING SEPARATION OF POWERS AND FEDERALISM PROBLEMS RAISED BY ERIE, . THE RULES OF DECISION ACT, AND THE RULES ENABLING ACT: A PROPOSED SOLUTION, 32 Cap. U.L. Rev. 519 (2004)

32 Cap. U.L. Rev. 519 p.519

3162 SYMPOSIUM: Judicial Refusal to Exercise Congressional Grants of Jurisdiction and Separation of Powers . *: "You Can Lead a Horse to Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal to Allow the Exercise of Original Jurisdiction Conferred by Congress ,40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 997 (1990)

3163 ARTICLE: FAILURE OF EQUITY: DISCRIMINATORY PLANT CLOSING AS AN IRREMEDIABLE INJURY . UNDER ERISA, 55 Cath. U.L. Rev. 81 (2005)

55 Cath. U.L. Rev. 81 p.81

3164 COMMENT: ERISA PREEMPTION AND PATIENTS' RIGHTS IN THE WAKE OF AETNA HEALTH INC. V. . DAVILA,54 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1039 (2005)

54 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1039 p.1039

3165 THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ACTIVE LABOR ACT OF 1986: PROVIDING . PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, 43 Cath. U.L. Rev. 607 (1994)

3166 ARTICLE: ERISA: THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RULE UNDER SIEGE., 39 Cath. U.L. Rev. 133 . (1989)

3167 SYMPOSIUM ON LABOR ARBITRATION THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE STEELWORKERS TRILOGY: . LIMITING SECTION 301 PREEMPTION: THREE CHEERS FOR THE TRILOGY, ONLY ONE FOR LINGLE AND LUECK , 66 Chi.--Kent. L. Rev. 685 (1990)

3168 Rehearing Sua Sponte, 65 Chi.--Kent. L. Rev. 919 (1989) .

3169 ERISA Waivers and State Health Care Reform, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 609 (1995) .

3170 NOTE: "SALVAGE OPERATIONS ARE ORDINARILY PREFERABLE TO THE WRECKING BALL": . BARRING CHALLENGES TO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 2369 (2005)

105 Colum. L. Rev. 2369 p.2369 Page 453 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3171 NOTE: LIMITING STEEL CO.: RECAPTURING A BROADER "ARISING UNDER" JURISDICTIONAL . QUESTION, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 2255 (2004)

104 Colum. L. Rev. 2255 p.2255

3172 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

3173 ARTICLE: DOES FEDERALISM CONSTRAIN THE TREATY POWER?, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 403 (2003) .

103 Colum. L. Rev. 403 p.403

3174 NOTE: PATENT PREEMPTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONTRACTS RESTRICTING REVERSE . ENGINEERING: THE LAST STAND? , 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1160 (1995)

3175 PRUNING THE JUDICIAL OAK: DEVELOPING A COHERENT APPLICATION OF COMMON LAW . AGENCY AND CONTROLLING PERSON LIABILITY IN SECURITIES CASES, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1185 (1993)

3176 ARTICLE: FEDERAL STATUTORY REVIEW UNDER SECTION 1983 AND THE APA., 91 Colum. L. Rev. . 233 (1991)

91 Colum. L. Rev. 233 p.238

3177 NOTE: UNFUNDED VACATION BENEFITS: DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF ERISA., 87 Colum. L. Rev. . 1702 (1987)

3178 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.1333

3179 NOTE: FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF LABOR CONTRACTS: RECOGNIZING A FEDERAL CLAIM OF . TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE., 86 Colum. L. Rev. 1051 (1986)

3180 BOOK REVIEW: THE FEDERAL COURTS, JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF . ANALYZING LEGAL DOCTRINE. THE FEDERAL COURTS: CRISIS AND REFORM. BY Richard A. Posner., 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1378 (1985)

3181 ARTICLE: Holmes v. Vornado: A Radical Change in Appellate Jurisdiction, 5 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 5 . (2003) Page 454 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3182 ARTICLE: Developments in the Second Circuit: 2000--2001, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 833 (2002) .

34 Conn. L. Rev. 833 p.833

3183 ARTICLE: Developments in the Second Circuit 1999--2000, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 945 (2001) .

33 Conn. L. Rev. 945 p.945

3184 ARTICLE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON LEGISLATION, ADJUDICATION, AND IMPLIED PRIVATE . ACTIONS IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS., 71 Cornell L. Rev. 501 (1986)

71 Cornell L. Rev. 501 p.520

3185 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: REMOVAL DOCTRINE REAFFIRMED: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD V. . CONSTRUCTION LABORERS VACATION TRUST., 70 Cornell L. Rev. 557 (1985)

3186 CASENOTE: Federal Jurisdiction ----ERISA PRE--EMPTION----ERISA Completely Pre--EmptsState Causes . of Action Raised by Individuals Against HMOs for Refusal of Medical Treatment , 35 Cumb. L. Rev. 445 (2004)

35 Cumb. L. Rev. 445 p.445

3187 COMMENT: LIABILITY OF MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS AFTER DUKES V. U.S. HEALTHCARE: . AN ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS, 27 Cumb. L. Rev. 681 (1996)

3188 COMMENT: ALABAMA'S LONELY BATTLE: AN ATTEMPT TO EXERT STATE JURISDICTION AND . AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL ERISA CLAIMS IN WEEMS V. JEFFERSON--PILOT LIFE INSURANCE CO., INC., 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 591 (1996)

3189 NOTE: Thiokol Corp. v. Roberts: The 'Tenuous, Remote and Peripheral' Exemption To Section 514 ERISA . Preemption, 10 DePaul Bus. L.J. 135 (1997)

3190 SYMPOSIUM: ERISA's Dark Side: Retiree Health Beneﬁts, False Employer Promises and The Protective . Judiciary, 9 DePaul Bus. L.J. 305 (1997)

3191 SYMPOSIUM: ERISA Remedies After Varity Corp. v. Howe, 9 DePaul Bus. L.J. 237 (1997) .

3192 SYMPOSIUM: THE FEDERALIZATION OF STATE LAW: ARTICLE: FEDERALIZATION: A CRITICAL . OVERVIEW, 44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 (1995)

44 DePaul L. Rev. 719 p.719 Page 455 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3193 COMMENT: REMOVAL OF THE ERISA PREEMPTION SHIELD: WILL THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S . APPROACH MAKE A DIFFERENCE?--INRE U.S. HEALTHCARE, INC., 26 Del. J. Corp. L. 585 (2001)

3194 SURVEY: ERISA's Casualties: Former Employees Duped Into Early Retirement----With Friends Like ERISA . Who Needs Enemies?, 83 Denv. U.L. Rev. 739 (2006)

83 Denv. U.L. Rev. 739 p.739

3195 ARTICLE: Why Bivens Won't Die: The Legacy of Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, 83 Denv. U.L. Rev. 685 . (2006)

83 Denv. U.L. Rev. 685 p.685

3196 ARTICLE: Labor/Employment Law: Mandatory Arbitration of Individual Employment Rights: The Yellow . Dog Contract of the 1990s , 73 Denv. U.L. Rev. 1017 (1996)

3197 ARTICLE: Pages Per Term in the United States Reports and Converting Supreme Court Citations to Term . Announced: A Statistical Research Tool, 1998 Det. C.L. Rev. 1091 (1998)

3198 ARTICLE: PERVERSIONS OF PREEMPTION, 1998 Det. C.L. Rev. 175 (1998) .

3199 ARTICLE: LABOR LAW, 1994 Det. C.L. Rev. 829 (1994) .

3200 ARTICLE: FEDERAL TAX, 1994 Det. C.L. Rev. 781 (1994) .

3201 ARTICLE: State Courts Hearing Patent Cases: A Cry for Help to the Federal Circuit, 101 Dick. L. Rev. 41 . (1996)

3202 ARTICLE: RATIONALIZING COMPLETE PREEMPTION AFTER BENEFICIAL NATIONAL BANK V. . ANDERSON: A NEW RULE, A NEW JUSTIFICATION, 54 Drake L. Rev. 371 (2006)

54 Drake L. Rev. 371 p.371

3203 BOOK REVIEW: TEACHING FEDERAL COURTS FROM A LITTLE RED BOOK. FEDERAL . JURISDICTION: POLICY AND PRACTICE. BY HOWARD FINK * AND MARK V. TUSHNET. **, 1985 Duke L.J. 833 (1985)

3204 ARTICLE: Crossed Signals in a Wireless World: The Seventh Circuit's Misapplication of the Complete . Preemption Doctrine, 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 14 (2004) Page 456 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3205 RECENT DECISION: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act Preempts State Law Causes of Action . Against ERISA--Regulated Beneﬁt Plans: Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 43 Duq. L. Rev. 345 (2005)

43 Duq. L. Rev. 345 p.345

3206 SECURING EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS THROUGH ERISA AND THE ADA, 42 Emory L.J. 1197 . (1993)

3207 ARTICLE: SUPREME COURT'S 2003--04TERM EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES: CLARIFYING ASPECTS . OF ANTI--DISCRIMINATION LAW AND ERISA, 8 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 195 (2004)

3208 ARTICLE: TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT GOLDEN HANDSHAKES: EXIT INCENTIVES AND . FIDUCIARY DUTIES, 5 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 169 (2001)

3209 ARTICLE: HAPPINESS AND ERISA: REFLECTIONS ON THE LESSONS OF ARISTOTLE'S . NICOMACHEAN ETHICS FOR SPONSORS OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS, 5 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 7 (2001)

3210 SUBMITTED COMMITTEE REPORT: REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, 23 Energy L. . J. 247 (2002)

23 Energy L. J. 247 p.247

3211 ARTICLE: ERISA'S PREEMPTION CLAUSE AND THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY: AN ABDICATION OF . JUDICIAL LAW--CREATING AUTHORITY, 46 Fla. L. Rev. 355 (1994)

3212 ARTICLE: THE "ARISING UNDER" JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT: AN OPPORTUNITY . FOR UNIFORMITY IN PATENT LAW, 14 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 229 (1986)

3213 NOTE: THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF STATE COURT ADJUDICATION OF PATENT ISSUES AND THE . FEDERAL COURTS' CHOICE OF PRECLUSION LAWS, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 707 (2000)

69 Fordham L. Rev. 707 p.707

3214 NOTE: ADOPTING A JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH TO THE RIGHTS OF ASSET PURCHASERS FROM . THE FDIC, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 287 (2000)

69 Fordham L. Rev. 287 p.287

3215 NOTE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES: JURISDICTION . OF THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THE TCPA, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 1895 (1998)

66 Fordham L. Rev. 1895 p.1895 Page 457 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3216 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

3217 ARTICLE: THE CASE AGAINST SUPPLEMENTAL BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION: A . CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND POLICY ANALYSIS., 62 Fordham L. Rev. 721 (1994)

3218 ARTICLE: THE SISTER SOVEREIGN STATES: PREEMPTION AND THE SECOND TWENTIETH . CENTURY REVOLUTION IN THE LAW OF THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE., 62 Fordham L. Rev. 469 (1993)

3219 NOTE: ERISA'S PREEMPTION OF STATE TAX LAWS., 61 Fordham L. Rev. 401 (1992) .

3220 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)

3221 NOTE: AN EMPLOYER'S IMPLIED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RESTITUTION UNDER SECTION 403 OF . ERISA., 54 Fordham L. Rev. 225 (1985)

3222 ARTICLE: AMERICAN--STYLEJUSTICE IN NO MAN'S LAND, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 895 (2002) .

36 Ga. L. Rev. 895 p.895

3223 NOTE: YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE--QUESTIONING THE EROSION OF ERISA PREEMPTION . IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS AGAINST HMOs, 30 Ga. L. Rev. 1023 (1996)

3224 ARTICLE: POSITIVISM AND ANTIPOSITIVISM IN FEDERAL COURTS LAW, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 655 (1995) .

3225 FELIX FRANKFURTER: THE ARCHITECT OF "OUR FEDERALISM", 27 Ga. L. Rev. 697 (1993) .

3226 ARTICLE: Is Disparity a Problem?, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988) .

3227 FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS: . ARTICLE: Why Professor Redish is Wrong About Abstention, 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1097 (1985) Page 458 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3228 FEDERALISM: ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS: . ARTICLE: The New Judicial Federalism: Where We Are Now * , 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1075 (1985)

3229 ARTICLE: TWENTY QUESTIONS (OR THE HARDEST COURSE IN LAW SCHOOL), 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. . 497 (2001)

18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 497 p.497

3230 NOTE & COMMENT: DUKING IT OUT: BEATING THE COMPLETE PREEMPTION OF ERISA UNDER . DUKES V. U.S. HEALTHCARE, INC., 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 925 (1998)

3231 ARTICLE: JUDICIAL REVIEW IN IMMIGRATION CASES AFTER AADC: LESSONS FROM CIVIL . PROCEDURE, 14 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 385 (2000)

3232 ARTICLE: Adrift on a Sea of Uncertainty: Preserving Uniformity in Patent Law Post--Vornado Through . Deference to the Federal Circuit, 92 Geo. L.J. 523 (2004)

92 Geo. L.J. 523 p.523

3233 SYMPOSIUM: "Economic Rights," Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983. , 77 Geo. . L.J. 1493 (1989)

77 Geo. L.J. 1493 p.1526

3234 SYMPOSIUM: PYRRHIC VICTORIES? REEXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTITRUST . REMEDIES IN RESTORING COMPETITION AND DETTERRING MISCONDUCT: Federal Judicial Power and the Challenges of Multijurisdictional Direct and Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 69 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 860 (2001)

69 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 860 p.860

3235 ARTICLE: When Federalism and Separation of Powers Collide ----Rethinking Younger Abstention., 59 Geo. . Wash. L. Rev. 114 (1990)

3236 ARTICLE: Characterizing Federal Claims: Preemption, Removal, and the Arising--UnderJurisdiction of the . Federal Courts., 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 812 (1986)

3237 ARTICLE: The Phoenix Precedents: The Unexpected Rebirth of Regional Circuit Jurisdiction Over Patent . Appeals and the Need for a Considered Congressional Response, 16 Harv. J. Law and Tec 411 (2003)

3238 ARTICLE: THE LAST ARTICLE ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF ERISA PREEMPTION? A CASE STUDY OF . THE FAILURE OF TEXTUALISM, 33 Harv. J. On Legis. 35 (1996)

3239 ARTICLE: THE RULE OF LAW PROBLEM: UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLASS ACTIONS AND OPTIONS FOR . REFORM, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 855 (2005) Page 459 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3240 ARTICLE: THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF ERISA, 21 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 541 (1998) .

3241 NOTE: MR. SMITH GOES TO FEDERAL COURT: FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION OVER STATE . LAW CLAIMS POST--MERRELLDOW, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2272 (2002)

115 Harv. L. Rev. 2272 p.2272

3242 NOTE: CHARTING NO MAN'S LAND: APPLYING JURISDICTIONAL AND CHOICE OF LAW . DOCTRINES TO INTERSTATE COMPACTS, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1991 (1998)

111 Harv. L. Rev. 1991 p.1991

3243 THE SUPREME COURT, 1985 TERM: LEADING CASE: II. FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND . PROCEDURE., 100 Harv. L. Rev. 230 (1986)

100 Harv. L. Rev. 230 p.230

3244 NOTE: The Role of U.S. Foreign Policy In Establishing Jurisdiction: Should Foreign Policy Be An Exclusively . Federal Concern, 28 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 229 (2005)

3245 ARTICLE: sThe Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction: Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Before and After Swint, 49 . Hastings L.J. 1337 (1998)

3246 ARTICLE: "Arising Under" Jurisdiction and the Copyright Laws., 44 Hastings L.J. 337 (1993) .

3247 ARTICLE: Reconsidering the Artful Pleading Doctrine., 44 Hastings L.J. 273 (1993) .

3248 ARTICLE: The New Habeas, 42 Hastings L.J. 941 (1991) .

3249 ARTICLE: Rights Require Remedies: A New Approach to the Enforcement of Rights in the Federal Courts., . 38 Hastings L.J. 665 (1987)

3250 ARTICLE: There's No Reason For It; It's Just Our Policy: Why the Well--PleadedComplaint Rule Sabotages . the Purposes of Federal Question Jurisdiction. , 38 Hastings L.J. 597 (1987)

3251 ARTICLE: Control of Break--Away State Antitrust Litigation: An Issue of Federalism., 35 Hastings L.J. 1 . (1983) Page 460 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3252 ARTICLE: COUNTERCLAIMS, THE WELL--PLEADEDCOMPLAINT, AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION, 33 . Hofstra L. Rev. 1 (2004)

33 Hofstra L. Rev. 1 p.1

3253 ARTICLE: JURISDICTIONALITY, TIME, AND THE LEGAL IMAGINATION, 23 Hofstra L. Rev. 1 (1994) .

23 Hofstra L. Rev. 1 p.1

3254 ARTICLE: RECONCILING THE GOALS OF FEDERALISM WITH THE POLICY OF TITLE VII: SUBJECT-- . MATTER JURISDICTION IN JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF EEOC CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS., 13 Hofstra L. Rev. 257 (1985)

3255 ARTICLE: RECONCILING THE GOALS OF FEDERALISM WITH THE POLICY OF TITLE VII: SUBJECT-- . MATTER JURISDICTION IN JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF EEOC CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS., 13 Hofstra L. Rev. 257 (1985)

3256 ARTICLE: A MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATION'S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY FOR DENIAL . OF CARE: THE LOST WORLD, 35 Hous. L. Rev. 715 (1998)

3257 ERISA PREEMPTION, COMMUNITY PROPERTY, AND THE NONEMPLOYEE SPOUSE: A STUDY IN . CONFUSED EQUITIESFN * , 30 Hous. L. Rev. 1695 (1993)

3258 CASENOTE: FINDING A FAIR FORUM: FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR IGRA COMPACT . ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS v. WILSON, 35 Idaho L. Rev. 159 (1998)

3259 ARTICLE: Recent Modiﬁcations to the Preemption Doctrine & Their Impact on State HMO Liability Laws,1 . Ind. Health L. Rev. 51 (2004)

1 Ind. Health L. Rev. 51 p.51

3260 ARTICLE: Constricting Remedies: The Rehnquist Judiciary, Congress, and Federal Power, 78 Ind. L.J. 223 . (2003)

78 Ind. L.J. 223 p.223

3261 ARTICLE: Whose Law Is It, Anyway? A Reconsideration of Federal Question Jurisdiction Over Cases of . Mixed State and Federal Law, 60 Ind. L.J. 17 (1984)

3262 ARTICLE: Justice Rehnquist, Statutory Interpretation, the Policies of Clear Statement, and Federal . Jurisdiction, 58 Ind. L.J. 211 (1982) Page 461 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3263 ARTICLE: Constitutional Remedies for Statutory Violations, 89 Iowa L. Rev. 355 (2004) .

89 Iowa L. Rev. 355 p.355

3264 ARTICLE: FEDERAL CIRCUIT "CHOICE OF LAW": ERIE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, 81 Iowa . L. Rev. 1173 (1996)

3265 ARTICLE: The Unhappy History of Federal Question Removal, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 717 (1986) .

3266 ARTICLE: VECTORS TO FEDERAL COURT: UNIQUE APPROACHES TO SUBJECT MATTER . JURISDICTION IN AVIATION CASES, 62 J. Air L. & Com. 959 (1997)

3267 DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE NOTE: CRITIQUE AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE SUPREME . COURT'SDECISION IN HOLMES V. VORNADO*, 5 J. App. Prac. & Process 501 (2003)

3268 NOTE: Subrogation or Subterfuge: The Myth of Erisa Health Beneﬁt Plans, 19 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y . 309 (2002)

3269 Comment: IT DOESN'T ADD UP: THE BROKEN PROMISES OF LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS, . MEDICARE, AND ACCOUNTING RULE FAS106 DO NOT EQUAL SATISFACTORY MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR RETIREES, 13 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 233 (1996)

3270 ARTICLE: Satellite Digital Radio Searching for Novel Theories of Action, 1 J. High Tech. L. 135 (2002) .

3271 ARTICLE: The Right to a Jury Trial in Jones Act Cases: Choosing the Forum Versus Choosing the Procedure, . 30 J. Mar. L. & Com. 649 (1999)

3272 ARTICLE: ERISA: STATE REGULATION OF INSURED PLANS AFTER DAVILA, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 693 . (2005)

38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 693 p.693

3273 ARTICLE: ERISA: RE--THINKINGFIRESTONE IN LIGHT OF GREAT--WEST--IMPLICATIONS FOR . STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN WELFARE BENEFIT CLAIMS, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 (2004)

37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 p.629

3274 ARTICLE: JURISDICTIONAL GERRYMANDERING? RESPONDING TO HOLMES GROUP v. VORNADO . AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2002) Page 462 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 p.1

3275 ARTICLE: THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF ERISA ON THE PREVAILING WAGE ACT, 29 J. Marshall L. . Rev. 55 (1995)

29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 55 p.55

3276 ARTICLE: Deferential Review of an Administrative Agency's Decision in Federal District Court: . International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 18 J. NAALJ 113 (1998)

3277 79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 651 .

79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 651 p.653

3278 NOTES AND COMMENT: CONTROL, QUALITY, AND COST: THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION . AMENDING ERISA'S * FAILURE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM LIABILITY--FREEMCOS **, 7 J.L. & Pol 'y 627 (1999)

3279 ERISA Preemption: Whether State Common Law Doctrines of Substantial Compliance Fall Under the . Purview of ERISA, 92 Ky. L.J. 551 (2004)

92 Ky. L.J. 551 p.551

3280 ARTICLE: ERISA Preemption: To Inﬁnity and Beyond and Back Again? (A Historical Review of Supreme . Court Jurisprudence) , 58 La. L. Rev. 997 (1998)

58 La. L. Rev. 997 p.997

3281 44 Lab. L.J. 742 .

44 Lab. L.J. 742 p.751

3282 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: EXTERNAL INFLUENCES AND CONTROLS: ARTICLE: ENTERPRISE . LIABILITY AND THE EMERGING MANAGED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, 60 Law & Contemp. Probs. 159 (1997)

3283 60 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 2 159, 60 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 2 159 .

60 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 2 159 p.181

3284 ARTICLE: No Appeal: The U.S.--U.K. Supplementary Extradition Treaty's Effort to Create Federal . Jurisdiction, 25 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 543 (2003) Page 463 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3285 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION*: REMOVAL . AND REMAND, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1555 (2004)

37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1555 p.1555

3286 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION*: FEDERAL . QUESTION JURISDICTION, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1443 (2004)

37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1443 p.1443

3287 COMMENT: THE ERISA PREEMPTION QUESTION: WHY SOME HMO MEMBERS ARE DYING FOR . CONGRESS TO AMEND ERISA, 82 Marq. L. Rev. 877 (1999)

82 Marq. L. Rev. 877 p.877

3288 COMMENT: All True Histories Contain Instruction: Why HMOs Cannot Avoid Malpractice Liability . Through Independent Contracting With Physicians, 29 McGeorge L. Rev. 323 (1998)

3289 THE MARYLAND SURVEY: 1996--1997: Recent Decisions: The United States Court of Appeals for the . Fourth Circuit, 57 Md. L. Rev. 1178 (1998)

3290 COMMENT: SEMINOLE TRIBE V. FLORIDA, 56 Md. L. Rev. 1411 (1997) .

3291 CASENOTE: City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons: The Interplay Between Supplemental . Jurisdiction and Cross--SystemAppeals, and the Impact on Federalism, 50 Mercer L. Rev. 1137 (1999)

3292 FEATURE: TAX LAW: REMOVING ERISA CASES AFTER WARNER V FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 74 MI . Bar Jnl. 1044 (1995)

3293 NOTE: No Longer Safe at Home: Preventing the Misuse of Federal Common Law of Foreign Relations as a . Defense Tactic in Private Transnational Litigation, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 2408 (2002)

100 Mich. L. Rev. 2408 p.2408

3294 ARTICLE: TRANSFER AND CHOICE OF FEDERAL LAW: THE APPELLATE MODEL, 93 Mich. L. Rev. . 703 (1995)

93 Mich. L. Rev. 703 p.742

3295 NOTES: Removal and the Eleventh Amendment: The Case for District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid a . Bifurcated Suit, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (1993)

92 Mich. L. Rev. 683 p.683

3296 NOTE: Does a Copyright Coowner's Duty To Account Arise Under Federal Law? , 90 Mich. L. Rev. 1998 . (1992) Page 464 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3297 NOTE: Employer Recapture of ERISA Contributions Made by Mistake: A Federal Common Law Remedy To . Prevent Unjust Enrichment, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 2000 (1991)

3298 ARTICLE: A REVISIONIST THEORY OF ABSTENTION. $(+$), 88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 (1989) .

88 Mich. L. Rev. 530 p.575

3299 ARTICLE: "ARISING UNDER" JURISDICTION AND UNIFORMITY IN PATENT LAW, 9 Mich. Telecomm. . Tech. L. Rev. 253 (2003)

3300 Note: Federalizing Foreign Relations: The Case for Expansive Federal Jurisdiction in Private International . Litigation, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 1464 (2005)

89 Minn. L. Rev. 1464 p.1464

3301 SYMPOSIUM: THE INTERFACE BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND ANTITRUST LAW: . Comment: Holmes and the Erosion of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction over Patent Claims, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 2133 (2003)

87 Minn. L. Rev. 2133 p.2133

3302 Comment: Loosening ERISA's Preemptive Grip on HMO Medical Malpractice Claims: A Response to . PaciﬁCare of Oklahoma v. Burrage, 80 Minn. L. Rev. 1545 (1996)

80 Minn. L. Rev. 1545 p.1545

3303 ARTICLE: Federal Questions and the Human Rights Paradigm *, 73 Minn. L. Rev. 349 (1988) .

73 Minn. L. Rev. 349 p.352

3304 COMMENT: ERISA AND BANKRUPTCY: CAN CREDITORS REACH A CHAPTER 7 DEBTOR'S . PENSION?, 61 Miss. L.J. 389 (1991)

3305 CASENOTE: The Clean Air Act and the Federal Removal Statute: Do They Fit Together or Are We Missing a . Piece of the Puzzle? , 8 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 85 (2001)

3306 NOTE: ERISA's Quantity vs. Quality Doctrine: The Eighth Circuit Limits Recovery Against an HMO by . Completely Preempting State Law: Hull v. Fallon n1, 65 Mo. L. Rev. 515 (2000)

65 Mo. L. Rev. 515 p.515

3307 COMMENT: The Federal Common Law of Foreign Relations, 26 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 247 (2005) . Page 465 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3308 COMMENT: The Ever--ExpandingComplete Preemption Doctrine and the Copyright Act: Is This What . Congress Really Wanted? , 7 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 205 (2005)

3309 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: In Search of the Welcome Mat: The Scope of Statutory Federal Question . Jurisdiction After Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 84 N.C. L. Rev. 1394 (2006)

84 N.C. L. Rev. 1394 p.1394

3310 ARTICLE: Legal Accountability for Utilization Review in ERISA Health Plans, 77 N.C. L. Rev. 731 (1999) .

3311 SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA LAW AND THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 1996: IV. . EMPLOYMENT LAW: Bedrick v. Travelers Insurance Co.: The Fourth Circuit 's Continued Attempt to Work with the "Doctrinal Hash" of the Standard of Review in ERISA Beneﬁt--DenialCases, 75 N.C. L. Rev. 2382 (1997)

3312 SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA LAW; V. EMPLOYMENT LAW: McCormick v. A T & . T Technologies, Inc. and Section 301 Preemption: The Fourth Circuit Makes a Federal Case Out of Workplace Torts. , 70 N.C. L. Rev. 2073 (1992)

3313 ARTICLE: THE RIGHT TO AVOID TRIAL: JUSTIFYING FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION INTO . ONGOING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS., 66 N.C. L. Rev. 49 (1987)

3314 CONTENT: FEDERAL COURTS, STATE POWER, AND INDIAN TRIBES: CONFRONTING THE WELL-- . PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2005)

35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 p.1

3315 CONTENT: ERISA RIGHT TO SUE: AN RX FOR HEALTH CARE THAT PLACES FORUM OVER . SUBSTANTIVE CONSUMER RIGHTS, 31 N.M. L. Rev. 493 (2001)

31 N.M. L. Rev. 493 p.493

3316 NOTE: IN DEFENSE OF HOLMES V. VORNADO: ADDRESSING THE UNWARRANTED CRITICISM, 79 . N.Y.U. L. Rev. 452 (2004)

79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 452 p.452

3317 ARTICLE: INDEPENDENT JUDGES, DEPENDENT JUDICIARY: INSTITUTIONALIZING JUDICIAL . RESTRAINT, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962 (2002)

77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962 p.962

3318 ARTICLE: FEDERAL COMMON LAW, COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF . THE TELECOM ACT, 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1692 (2001) Page 466 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1692 p.1692

3319 ARTICLE: REVIVING HUGO BLACK? THE COURT'S "JOT FOR JOT" ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIVE . DUE PROCESS, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1086 (1998)

3320 NOTE: UNDERSTANDING PREEMPTION REMOVAL UNDER ERISA 502, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 578 (1997) .

72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 578 p.578 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 578 p.582 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 578 p.585

3321 SYMPOSIUM: THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON . CLASS ACTIONS: CLASS ACTIONS AND JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: OVERLAPPING CLASS ACTIONS, 71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 (1996)

71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 514 p.530

3322 ARTICLE: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT: A CASE STUDY IN SPECIALIZED COURTS., 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 . (1989)

64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 p.30

3323 ARTICLE: EXPLAINING HABEAS CORPUS., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 (1985) .

60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 991 p.1026

3324 ARTICLE: JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION., 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 (1985) .

60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 p.568

3325 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: APPENDIX: CRIMINAL LAW APPENDIX. . $(PART 1 of 2$), 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1679 (1984)

3326 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: ARTICLE: APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF . CASES GRANTED CERTIORARI DURING THE 1982 TERM. $(PART 1 OF 3$), 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 823 (1984)

3327 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SUPREME COURT PROJECT: ARTICLE: A MANAGERIAL THEORY OF THE . SUPREME COURT'S RESPONSIBILITIES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY., 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 681 (1984)

59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 681 p.747

3328 NOTE*: Death of a Remedy: The Supreme Court's Ill--fatedDecision to Foreclose an Avenue of Liability . Against Managed Care Organizations Under ERISA in Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S. Ct. 2143 (2000), 79 Neb. L. Rev. 762 (2000) Page 467 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

79 Neb. L. Rev. 762 p.762

3329 NOTE: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LAW: SECURING EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFITS THROUGH ERISA, . 61 Notre Dame L. Rev. 551 (1986)

61 Notre Dame L. Rev. 551 p.551

3330 ARTICLE AND ESSAY: RECENT TRENDS IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT: REMOVAL JURISDICTION . AND PROCEDURES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW LITIGATION, 28 Nova L. Rev. 351 (2004)

3331 ARTICLE: IS JURISDICTION JURISDICTIONAL?, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1207 (2001) .

95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1207 p.1207

3332 LEGAL THEORY: A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE: THE SUPREME COURT, CONGRESS AND FEDERAL . JURISDICTION., 85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 (1990)

85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 p.21

3333 NOTE: Achieving Managed Care Accountability by Ending the ERISA Preemption Defense * , 59 Ohio St. . L.J. 1423 (1998)

59 Ohio St. L.J. 1423 p.1423

3334 ARTICLE: Prerogative Lost: The Trouble with Statutory Federal Question Doctrine After Merrell Dow, 52 . Ohio St. L.J. 1477 (1991)

3335 Retiree Health Beneﬁts, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 985 (1991) .

3336 NOTE: Contingent Workers And ERISA: Should The Law Protect Workers with No Reasonable Pension . Expectations? *, 25 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 667 (2000)

3337 ARTICLE: A DEVICE DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: WHY COURTS . SHOULD REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE POST--REMOVAL DAMAGE STIPULATIONS, 58 Okla. L. Rev. 221 (2005)

58 Okla. L. Rev. 221 p.221

3338 NOTE: Preemption: The Federal Employees Health Beneﬁt Act (FEHBA): Why the Oklahoma Supreme Court . Was Wrong in Allowing State Claims in Kincade v. Group Health Services, 52 Okla. L. Rev. 273 (1999)

3339 COMMENT: Health Care: ERISA Preemption and HMO Liability A Fresh Look at ERISA Preemption in the . Context of Subscriber Claims Against HMOs, 49 Okla. L. Rev. 677 (1996) Page 468 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3340 ARTICLE: MANAGED CARE LIABILITY AND ERISA PREEMPTION, 69 Pa. B.A.Q. 93 (1998) .

3341 COMMENT: THE ELUSIVE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER AIR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN . THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA, 10 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y 653 (2001)

3342 ARTICLE: Revisiting Cooperative Federalism in Mandated Employer--Sponsored Health Care Programs . under the ERISA Preemption Provision, 8 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 239 (2005)

3343 ARTICLE: Quantity Versus Quality: The Medical Malpractice Exception to ERISA Preemption, 5 Quinnipiac . Health L.J. 153 (2002)

3344 ARTICLE: Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Awards in Rhode Island, 3 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 165 . (1998)

3345 NOTE: FEDERAL LABOR LAW PREEMPTION OF STATE CLAIMS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE . WITH CONTRACT AGAINST NONSIGNATORIES., 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1675 (1992)

3346 ARTICLE: BASIC REMOVAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6 S. Carolina Lawyer 25 (1995) .

3347 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CASE LAW: FOURTH CIRCUIT REFUSES TO EXERCISE SUBJECT . MATTER JURISDICTION OVER STATE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIM THAT REFERS TO FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES, 4 S.C Envtl. L.J. 63 (1995)

3348 NOTE: Note: Aerojet Takes A Dive After Over Twelve Years of Flight, 54 S.C. L. Rev. 1131 (2003) .

54 S.C. L. Rev. 1131 p.1131

3349 ANNUAL SURVEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW (January 1--December31, 1992): ADMINISTRATIVE . LAW: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 45 S.C. L. Rev. 187 (1993)

3350 ARTICLE: ERISA: Reformulating the Federal Common Law For Plan Interpretation, 32 San Diego L. Rev. . 955 (1995)

3351 ARTICLE: ERISA: THE SAVINGS CLAUSE, 502 IMPLIED PREEMPTION, COMPLETE PREEMPTION, . AND STATE LAW REMEDIES, 42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 105 (2001)

42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 105 p.105 Page 469 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3352 ARTICLE: Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy for Claims Brought Under the Federal . Declaratory Judgment Act, 27 Seattle Univ. L. R. 751 (2004)

3353 ARTICLE: Begging The Federal Question: Removal Jurisdiction In Wrongful Discharge Cases, 20 Seattle . Univ. L. R. 81 (1996)

3354 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Grable & Sons v. Darue Engineering Does Not . Resolve the Split Over Merrell Dow v. Thompson, 2 Seton Hall Cir. Rev. 530 (2006)

3355 ARTICLE: CONSCRIPTING STATE LAW TO PROTECT VOLUNTEERS: THE ODD FORMULATION OF . FEDERALISM IN "OPT--OUT" PREEMPTION, 10 Seton Hall J. Sports L. 9 (2000)

3356 ARTICLE: Attention Shoppers: The Federal Circuit's Failure to Preempt Contractual Provisions Prohibiting . Reverse Engineering May Create a Blue Light Special on Jurisdictional Forums, 57 SMU L. Rev. 63 (2004)

57 SMU L. Rev. 63 p.63

3357 ANNUAL SURVEY OF TEXAS LAW: ARTICLE: Environmental Law, 56 SMU L. Rev. 1611 (2003) .

56 SMU L. Rev. 1611 p.1611

3358 ARTICLE: Mending the Weathered Jurisdictional Fences in the Supreme Court's Securities Fraud Decisions, . 49 SMU L. Rev. 159 (1996)

3359 NOTE: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT ERISA PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE IN ANTICIPATION OF . CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF TEXAS V. CALAD AND AETNA HEALTH, INC. V. DAVILA, 19 St. John's J.L. Comm. 535 (2005)

3360 NOTE: FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE SAFETY REGULATIONS: INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF . INDEP. TANKER OWNERS V. LOCKE, 15 St. John's J.L. Comm. 25 (2000)

3361 COMMENT: Romney v. Lin: ERISA Preemption of Section 630 of New York's Business Corporation Law, 71 . St. John's L. Rev. 691 (1997)

71 St. John's L. Rev. 691 p.691

3362 STUDENT PERSPECTIVES: PHRASING THE QUESTION: THE USE OF THE BUFFALO CREEK . DISASTER IN TEACHING CIVIL PROCEDURE, 47 St. Louis U. L.J. 149 (2003)

47 St. Louis U. L.J. 149 p.149

3363 Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 235 (1994) .

46 Stan. L. Rev. 235 p.250 Page 470 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3364 ARTICLE: The Impact of Lohr v. Medtronic on the First Circuit's Application of the Medical Device . Amendments., 3 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 157 (1998)

3365 COMMENT: PINEAPPLES, PRESIDENTS AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: A DEFENSE OF THE . FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF FOREIGN RELATIONS AND A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR ITS APPLICATION, 35 Sw. U. L. Rev. 253 (2006)

35 Sw. U. L. Rev. 253 p.253

3366 NOTE: Preemption, Exclusive Jurisdiction, and the Patent Laws: The Federal Circuit Holds That Two . Wrongs Make a Right--Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998) , 17 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 137 (1999)

3367 ARTICLE: JOINDER AND JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS: THE STATE OF THE . UNION OF RULES AND STATUTES, 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 35 (2001)

69 Tenn. L. Rev. 35 p.35

3368 ARTICLE: Litigating Intellectual Property Disputes in Texas State Court, 12 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 473 (2004) .

3369 Note: ERISA Preemption and MCO Liability: The Court's Search in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila for . Congress's Elusive Intent*, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 1347 (2006)

84 Tex. L. Rev. 1347 p.1347

3370 NOTE: Vornado Hits the Midwest: Federal Circuit Jurisdiction in Patent and Antitrust Cases After Holmes v. . Vornado* , 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1091 (2004)

82 Tex. L. Rev. 1091 p.1091

3371 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SYMPOSIUM HONORING CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT: Federal . Jurisdiction and the Problem of the Litigative Unit: When Does What "Arise Under" Federal Law?, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 1829 (1998)

76 Tex. L. Rev. 1829 p.1829

3372 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SYMPOSIUM HONORING CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT: Artful . Pleading: A Doctrine in Search of Deﬁnition, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 1781 (1998)

76 Tex. L. Rev. 1781 p.1784

3373 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.921 Page 471 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3374 NOTE: Riotous Uncertainty: A Quarrel with the "Commentators' Rule" Against Section 1441(c) Removal for . Counterclaim, Cross--Claim,and Third--Party Defendants, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 659 (1997)

3375 BOOK REVIEW: Gladly Wolde He Lerne, and Gladly Teche. * LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS. By Charles . Alan Wright. ** , 73 Tex. L. Rev. 957 (1995)

3376 SYMPOSIUM ----FEDERAL CONFLICTS LAW: ARTICLE: The Federal--StateConﬂict of Laws: "Actual " . Conﬂicts., 70 Tex. L. Rev. 1743 (1992)

70 Tex. L. Rev. 1743 p.1763

3377 ARTICLE: The Use of Authority in Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical Analysis., 70 Tex. L. Rev. 1073 . (1992)

70 Tex. L. Rev. 1073 p.1100

3378 OBSERVATION: Preemption of State Laws Relating to Employee Beneﬁt Plans: An Analysis of ERISA . Section 514. +, 62 Tex. L. Rev. 1313 (1984)

3379 NOTE: Federal Jurisdiction over Preemption Claims: A Post--Franchise Tax Board Analysis. + , 62 Tex. L. . Rev. 893 (1984)

3380 COMMENT: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK: THE IMPACT OF AETNA HEALTH INC. V. . DAVILA ON ERISA AND PATIENTS' RIGHTS*, 38 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 127 (2005)

38 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 127 p.127

3381 SURVEY ARTICLE: Employee Beneﬁts Law: Betrayed without a Remedy----Again! , 35 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 805 . (2004)

35 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 805 p.805

3382 ARTICLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE, 29 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 397 (1998) .

3383 SURVEY: DIVORCE, LIES AND PENSIONS: Employee Beneﬁts in the Fifth Circuit, 28 Tex. Tech L. Rev. . 493 (1997)

3384 ARTICLE: ACCURACY IS NOT A LOT TO ASK: DECISIONS IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CIRCUITS . SET THE TONE FOR LITIGATION OVER CONFLICTS BETWEEN ERISA PLAN DOCUMENTS AND SUMMARIES, 6 Transactions 361 (2005) Page 472 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3385 SYMPOSIUM: IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION: . THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Federalizing International Civil Litigation In The United States: A Modest Proposal, 8 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 57 (1998)

3386 ARTICLE: GARA's Achilles: The Problematic Application of the Knowing Misrepresentation Exception, 24 . Transp. L. J. 191 (1997)

3387 COMMENT: FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TORT SUITS: . CLOSING THE DOORS OF U.S. COURTS TO FOREIGN PLAINTIFFS, 9 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 513 (1996)

3388 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: Expanding the Docket: The Fifth Circuit Disregards Judicial Economy in Grant . v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., 77 Tul. L. Rev. 1453 (2003)

77 Tul. L. Rev. 1453 p.1453

3389 ARTICLE: Protecting Patient Rights Despite ERISA: Will the Supreme Court Allow States to Regulate . Managed Care? , 74 Tul. L. Rev. 951 (2000)

74 Tul. L. Rev. 951 p.951

3390 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND RECREATIONAL CRAFT PERSONAL INJURY ISSUES, 68 Tul. L. Rev. . 423 (1994)

68 Tul. L. Rev. 423 p.423

3391 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: WILLY V. COASTAL CORP.: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BLOWS THE WHISTLE . ON REMOVAL JURISDICTION., 63 Tul. L. Rev. 1230 (1989)

63 Tul. L. Rev. 1230 p.1230

3392 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: Recent Developments in Maritime Law*, 28 Tul. Mar. L. J. 375 (2004) .

3393 NOTE: THE AVCO EXCEPTION TO THE WELL PLEADED COMPLAINT DOCTRINE AS APPLIED TO . THE LHWCA: AARON V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., 16 Tul. Mar. L. J. 235 (1991)

3394 ARTICLE: PREEMPTION "BETWEEN THE POLES:" ERISA'S EFFECT ON STATE COMMON LAW . ACTIONS OTHER THAN BENEFIT CLAIMS, 19 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 541 (1997)

3395 RECENT DEVELOPMENT: TREACY v. NEWDUNN ASSOCIATES, LLP: THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS . FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT WETLANDS CONNECTED TO NAVIGABLE WATERS VIA MANMADE DITCHES CAN BE REGULATED UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 12 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 83 (2004) Page 473 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3396 COMMENT: Appellate Review of SLUSA Remands after CAFA, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 321 (2006) .

73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 321 p.321

3397 COMMENTS: The Illegitimacy of Protective Jurisdiction over Foreign Affairs, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1487 (2003) .

70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1487 p.1487

3398 COMMENT: Cross--Jurisdictional Remands, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 689 (2003) .

70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 689 p.689

3399 ARTICLE: The Legacy of Industrial Pluralism: The Tension Between Individual Employment Rights and the . New Deal Collective Bargaining System., 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 575 (1992)

59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 575 p.597

3400 COMMENT: Federal Preemption, Removal Jurisdiction, and the Well--PleadedComplaint Rule, 51 U. Chi. L. . Rev. 634 (1984)

3401 EDITORIAL NOTE: FEDERAL LABOR LAW PREEMPTION OF STATE WRONGFUL DISCHARGE . CLAIMS, 58 U. Cin. L. Rev. 491 (1989)

3402 FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: WHEN DOES A CASE INVOLVING THE BREACH OF A . COPYRIGHT LICENSING CONTRACT "ARISE UNDER" THE COPYRIGHT ACT?, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 165 (1993)

3403 NOTE: SLICING THROUGH THE GORDIAN KNOT: "EMPLOYERS," STANDING, AND REMOVAL . UNDER ERISA, 2005 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1257 (2005)

2005 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1257 p.1257

3404 NOTE: ERISA PREEMPTION: IMMUNITY FOR HMOS, 1998 U. Ill. L. Rev. 199 (1998) .

3405 NOTE: FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUITS ----FEDERAL . PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 127 (1986)

3406 The Laissez--Faire Arbitration Market and the Need for a Uniform Federal Standard Governing Employment . and Consumer Arbitration, 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 583 (2004)

3407 ARTICLE: ERISA at 25--andIts Most Persistent Problem, 48 U. Kan. L. Rev. 285 (2000) . Page 474 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3408 ARTICLE: The Sixth Circuit Year in Review----LeadingCases of 1994, 25 U. Mem. L. Rev. 365 (1994) .

3409 ARTICLE: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: The Eight--Year Saga Is Finally Over, 59 U. Miami L. Rev. . 385 (2005)

59 U. Miami L. Rev. 385 p.385

3410 COMMENT: New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans, et al. v. Travelers Insurance . Company, et al.: Medical Malpractice and Enabling Regulation In States Again, 51 U. Miami L. Rev. 131 (1996)

3411 ARTICLE: The Emerging State Court 1983 Action: A Procedural Review $(PART 2 OF 2$), 38 U. Miami L. . Rev. 381 (1984)

3412 ARTICLE: ERISA RETIREMENT PLANS IN INDIVIDUAL BANKRUPTCY, 19 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 183 . (1985)

3413 ARTICLE: ERISA PREEMPTION: JUDICIAL FLEXIBILITY AND STATUTORY RIGIDITY, 19 U. Mich. J.L. . Reform 109 (1985)

3414 CASENOTE: ERISA's Preemption Ruling Prevents a Patient from Suing an HMO under State Malpractice . Law: After Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila Who Will Grant the Working Middle Class a Meaningful Right to be Heard? , 7 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 715 (2005)

3415 COLLOQUY: ARTICLE III AND THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789: THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF . ARTICLE III., 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1569 (1990)

138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1569 p.1587

3416 COMMENT: FEDERAL COMMON LAW POWER TO REMAND A PROPERLY REMOVED CASE., 136 U. . Pa. L. Rev. 583 (1987)

3417 ARTICLE: ORIGINS OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW: PART TWO. *, 133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1231 (1985) .

133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1231 p.1314

3418 ARTICLE: PUBLIC GOODS, PRIVATE CONTRACT AND PUBLIC POLICY: FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF . SOFTWARE LICENSE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST REVERSE ENGINEERING,53 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 543 (1992)

3419 ARTICLE: RETHINKING EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION *, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383 (1991) . Page 475 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3420 SPECIAL ISSUE ON LEGISLATION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: . NONORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION----A COMMENT ON FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION AND MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS INC. V. THOMPSON. + , 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 757 (1987)

3421 ARTICLE: THE SCOPE OF ERISA PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW: A STUDY IN EFFECTIVE . FEDERALISM. + , 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 427 (1987)

3422 ARTICLE: REAL ESTATE AND LAND USE LAW, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 357 (2004) .

39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 357 p.357

3423 ARTICLE: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 203 (2004) .

39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 203 p.203

3424 ARTICLE: ADVISORY OPINIONS BY FEDERAL COURTS, 32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 769 (1998) .

32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 769 p.769

3425 COMMENT: Preemption Gone Wrong: Reconsidering ERISA Preemption of Wrongful Termination Claims in . the Ninth Circuit,32 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1079 (1999)

3426 PROSPECTUSES: Prospectus for the American Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project, 31 . U.C. Davis L. Rev. 855 (1998)

3427 Comment: For the Sake of Your Health: ERISA's Preemption Provisions, HMO Accountability, and . Consumer Access to State Law Remedies, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 361 (2004)

38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 361 p.361

3428 ARTICLE: THE EFFECTS OF CASE CONSOLIDATION ON THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF . LITIGANTS: WHAT THEY ARE, WHAT THEY MIGHT BE PART 1: JUSTICIABILITY AND JURISDICTION (ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE), 42 UCLA L. Rev. 717 (1995)

42 UCLA L. Rev. 717 p.742

3429 ARTICLE: HISTORY COMES CALLING: DEAN GRISWOLD OFFERS NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE . JURISDICTIONAL DEBATE SURROUNDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT., 37 UCLA L. Rev. 139 (1989)

37 UCLA L. Rev. 139 p.140 Page 476 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3430 ARTICLE: The Trojan Horse: How the Declaratory Judgment Act Created a Cause of Action and Expanded . Federal Jurisdiction While the Supreme Court Wasn't Looking, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 529 (1989)

36 UCLA L. Rev. 529 p.529

3431 COMMENT: ARTFUL PLEADING AND REMOVAL JURISDICTION: FERRETING OUT THE TRUE . NATURE OF A CLAIM., 35 UCLA L. Rev. 315 (1987)

3432 ARTICLE: THE PERILOUS AND EVER--CHANGINGPROCEDURAL RULES OF PURSUING AN ERISA . CLAIMS CASE, 70 UMKC L. Rev. 329 (2001)

70 UMKC L. Rev. 329 p.329

3433 CHALLENGING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS, 61 UMKC L. . Rev. 635 (1993)

3434 ARTICLE: ILLINOIS CENTRAL AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IN STATE LAW, 15 Va. Envtl. L.J. . 713 (1996)

3435 PRINCIPAL PAPER: The Alien Tort Statute and Article III, 42 Va. J. Int'l L. 587 (2002) .

3436 ARTICLE: STATE STANDING, 81 Va. L. Rev. 387 (1995) .

81 Va. L. Rev. 387 p.420

3437 REASSESSING THE ALLOCATION OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL . COURTS: FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND "THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES". *, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 (1992)

78 Va. L. Rev. 1769 p.1797

3438 NOTE: THE BREADTH OF COMPLETE PREEMPTION: LIMITING THE DOCTRINE TO ITS ROOTS, 76 . Va. L. Rev. 1601 (1990)

3439 ARTICLE: RHETORIC AND ITS DENIAL IN LEGAL DISCOURSE, 76 Va. L. Rev. 1545 (1990) .

76 Va. L. Rev. 1545 p.1602

3440 NOTE: BUCKING THE TREND: AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF A FIDUCIARY'S IMPLIED RIGHT TO . CONTRIBUTION UNDER ERISA., 76 Va. L. Rev. 1377 (1990)

3441 ARTICLE: THE IDEOLOGIES OF FEDERAL COURTS LAW., 74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988) . Page 477 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 p.1149

3442 ARTICLE: FEDERALISM, STATE COURTS, AND SECTION 1983., 73 Va. L. Rev. 959 (1987) .

73 Va. L. Rev. 959 p.959

3443 NOTE: It's All in the Timing: Rethinking Remand of Supplemental Claims to Preserve Court Resources, 38 . Val. U.L. Rev. 1459 (2004)

38 Val. U.L. Rev. 1459 p.1459

3444 NOTE: Foreign Relations and Federal Questions: Resolving the Judicial Split on Federal Court Jurisdiction, . 35 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1637 (2002)

3445 ARTICLE: Removal, Remand, and Review in Pendent Claim and Pendent Party Cases., 41 Vand. L. Rev. 923 . (1988)

3446 ARTICLE: Thoughts on a Faded Peacock: The Effect of ERISA's Preemption Provision on State Third Party . Prescription Drug Program Statutes., 39 Vand. L. Rev. 23 (1986)

3447 NOTE: HOW CAN IT BE WRONG WHEN IT FEELS SO RIGHT? APPELLATE REVIEW OF REMAND . ORDERS UNDER THE SECURITIES LITIGATION UNIFORM STANDARDS ACT, 50 Vill. L. Rev. 305 (2005)

50 Vill. L. Rev. 305 p.305

3448 ISSUES IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT: CASEBRIEF: LABOR LAW----ANTOL V. ESPOSTO: THE THIRD . CIRCUIT EXPANDS PREEMPTION UNDER THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1995 (1997)

3449 NOTE: CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF LOUISIANA, INC. V. LOUISIANA: UNWILLING TO SAVE . LOUISIANA'S ANY WILLING PROVIDER STATUTE FROM ERISA PREEMPTION, 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1255 (1997)

3450 ARTICLE: BROKEN BACK: A PATIENT'S REFLECTIONS ON THE PROCESS OF MEDICAL NECESSITY . DETERMINATIONS, 40 Vill. L. Rev. 153 (1995)

3451 Casenote: A JURISDICTIONAL "NIGHTMARE": DETERMINING WHEN AN INTERDEPENDENT . COPYRIGHT AND CONTRACT CLAIM "ARISES UNDER" THE COPYRIGHT ACT IN SCHOLASTIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC. V. FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. , 11 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 271 (2004)

3452 CASE NOTES AND COMMENTS: Air Transport Association of America v. City and County of San Francisco: . Domestic Partner Beneﬁts Upheld, Except Where Preempted by ERISA,27 W. St. U.L. Rev. 323 (1999) Page 478 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

27 W. St. U.L. Rev. 323 p.323

3453 ARTICLE: Principles of Forum Selection, 103 W. Va. L. Rev. 167 (2000) .

103 W. Va. L. Rev. 167 p.167

3454 ARTICLE: HISTORY, JURISDICTION, AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: CHANGING CONTEXTS, . SELECTIVE MEMORIES, AND LIMITED IMAGINATION, 98 W. Va. L. Rev. 171 (1995)

3455 ARTICLE: THE COMPLETE PREEMPTION DILEMMA: A LEGAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, 31 Wake . Forest L. Rev. 927 (1996)

3456 NOTE: The New Map: The Supreme Court's Guide To Curing Thirty Years of Confusion in ERISA Savings . Clause Analysis, 62 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 643 (2005)

62 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 643 p.643

3457 ARTICLE: EX PARTE YOUNG AND FEDERAL REMEDIES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY VIOLATIONS, . 75 Wash. L. Rev. 1103 (2000)

3458 COMMENT: THE PARENTAL KIDNAPPING PREVENTION ACT: IS THERE AN ENFORCEMENT ROLE . FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS? , 62 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (1987)

3459 NOTE: UNDERSTANDING MERRELL DOW: FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION FOR STATE-- . FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION FOR STATE--FEDERALHYBRID CASES, 77 Wash. U. L. Q. 219 (1999)

77 Wash. U. L. Q. 219 p.219

3460 ARTICLE: PERMISSIVE BANKRUPTCY ABSTENTION *, 76 Wash. U. L. Q. 781 (1998) .

76 Wash. U. L. Q. 781 p.781

3461 NOTE: STATE--LEGISLATED FAMILY LEAVE: THE FMLA'S PANACEA OR ERISA'S SCOURGE? , 73 . Wash. U. L. Q. 665 (1995)

3462 ARTICLE: CLOSING THE GAP: SAFEGUARDING PARTICIPANTS' RIGHTS BY EXPANDING THE . FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF ERISA, 72 Wash. U. L. Q. 671 (1994)

3463 ARTICLE: ERISA AND THE LANGUAGE OF PREEMPTION, 72 Wash. U. L. Q. 619 (1994) . Page 479 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3464 ARTICLE: A LITTLE "RIGHT" MUSICK: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL CREATION OF . PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 10(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, 72 Wash. U. L. Q. 287 (1994)

3465 NOTE AND COMMENT: THE IMPACT OF ERISA ON CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE LAW FOLLOWING . THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S PRO--PREEMPTIONINTERPRETATION, 26 Whittier L. Rev. 1169 (2005)

3466 ARTICLE: PROCEEDING GEOMETRICALLY: RETHINKING PARALLEL STATE AND FEDERAL . EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, 18 Whittier L. Rev. 499 (1997)

3467 ARTICLE: THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT n1, 39 Willamette L. Rev. 851 . (2003)

39 Willamette L. Rev. 851 p.851

3468 COMMENT: THE GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT OF 1994: A TEN--YEAR . RETROSPECTIVE, 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 945 (2004)

2004 Wis. L. Rev. 945 p.945

3469 COMMENT: CONFLICTING DEMANDS MEET CONFLICT OF LAWS: ERISA PREEMPTION OF . WISCONSIN'S FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT., 1992 Wis. L. Rev. 809 (1992)

3470 NOTE: FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES V. MOITIE: REMOVAL AND RELITIGATION . REAPPRAISED., 1983 Wis. L. Rev. 989 (1983)

1983 Wis. L. Rev. 989 p.989

3471 3 Wis. L. Rev. 945 .

3 Wis. L. Rev. 945 p.945

3472 NOTE: Fourth Circuit Summary, 28 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 981 (2004) .

3473 ARTICLE: FOURTH CIRCUIT SUMMARY, 21 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 293 (1997) .

3474 SYMPOSIUM: DUAL ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS: BRIDGING THE . ENFORCEMENT GAP IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: A CRITIQUE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S THEORY THAT SELF--RESTRAINTPROMOTES FEDERALISM, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1289 (2005)

46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1289 p.1289 Page 480 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3475 ARTICLE: Reconceptualizing Federal Preemption of Tort Claims as The Government Standards Defense, 37 . Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 903 (1996)

3476 ARTICLE: THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS ON THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, 30 Wm. . & Mary L. Rev. 499 (1989)

3477 ARTICLE: Travelers Insurance: New Support for the Argument to Restrain ERISA Pre--emption , 13 Yale J. . On Reg. 255 (1996)

3478 ARTICLE: Patient Injury Incentives in Law, 17 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1 (1998) .

3479 Article: The Unjustiﬁed Absence of Federal Fraud Protection in the Labor Market, 107 Yale L.J. 715 (1997) .

107 Yale L.J. 715 p.758

3480 ARTICLE: Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions., 101 Yale L.J. 331 (1991) .

101 Yale L.J. 331 p.429

3481 NOTE: The Need for a New Approach to Federal Preemption of Union Members' State Law Claims., 99 Yale . L.J. 209 (1989)

3482 ARTICLE: Conﬂicts Among Circuits and Transfers Within the Federal Judicial System *, 93 Yale L.J. 677 . (1984)

ALR ANNOTATIONS ( 8 Citing Annotations )

3483 Supreme Court's construction and application of sec. 502 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of . 1974 (ERISA), as amended (29 USCS sec. 1132), providing for civil enforcement of ERISA , 151 L. Ed. 2d 1083, secs. 3, 5

3484 When is state or local law pre--emptedby Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended . (ERISA) (29 USCS secs. 1001 et seq.)----Supreme Court cases, 121 L. Ed. 2d 783, secs. 2, 12

3485 Supreme Court's views as to scope of "arising under" clause of Article III sec. 2, clause 1 of Federal . Constitution, 76 L. Ed. 2d 831, secs. 4, 5, 7, 11 Page 481 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3486 Constitutionality and construction of sec. 301(a) of Labor Management Relations Act (29 USC sec. 185(a)) . conferring jurisdiction on Federal District Courts in actions for violation of contract between employer and labor organization----federal cases, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1143, supp sec. 9

3487 Construction and application of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C.A. secs. 1001 et seq.) . by United States Supreme Court, 150 A.L.R. Fed. 441, sec. 22

3488 When does vacation pay constitute employee welfare beneﬁt plan for purposes of Employee Retirement . Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 USCS secs. 1001 et seq.), 140 A.L.R. Fed. 601, sec. 3(b)

3489 Construction and application of Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 USCS sec. 1395dd), . 104 A.L.R. Fed. 166, sec. 3

3490 Federal question jurisdiction in declaratory judgment suit challenging state statute or regulation on grounds . of federal pre--emption , 69 A.L.R. Fed. 753, secs. 2, 3

TREATISE CITATIONS ( 78 Citing Sources )

3491 2--17Aviation Accident Law @ 17.01 .

3492 10--57Bender's Federal Practice Forms Scope .

3493 3--29Business Torts @ 29.04 .

3494 4--61California Employment Law @ 61.03 .

3495 22--265California Forms of Pleading and Practice----Annotated@ 265.33 .

3496 22--265California Forms of Pleading and Practice----Annotated@ 265.64 .

3497 47--540California Forms of Pleading and Practice----Annotated@ 540.301 .

3498 11--385California Real Estate Law & Practice @ 385.74 . Page 482 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3499 3--40BCalifornia Torts @ 40B.50 .

3500 5--71California Torts @ 71.22 .

3501 8--21Chisum on Patents @ 21.02 .

3502 8--21Chisum on Patents Supp. to @ 21.02 .

3503 16 Chisum on Patents Supp. to @ 8000 .

3504 16 Chisum on Patents @ 8000 .

3505 1--6Civil RICO @ 6.03 .

3506 1--6Criminal Defense Techniques @ 6.03 .

3507 5--63Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide @ 63.02 .

3508 5--63Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide @ 63.202 .

3509 1--2Employee Beneﬁts Guide @ 2.04 .

3510 1--8Employee Beneﬁts Guide @ 8.04 .

3511 2--29Employee Beneﬁts Guide @ 29.02 . Page 483 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3512 11--79Federal Antitrust Law @ 79.3 .

3513 1--3Federal Litigation Guide: New York and Connecticut @ 3.03 .

3514 1--4Federal Litigation Guide: New York and Connecticut @ 4.04 .

3515 1--30Insurance Bad Faith Litigation @ 30.05 .

3516 1--30Insurance Bad Faith Litigation @ 30.08 .

3517 2--36Labor and Employment Law @ 36.01 .

3518 2--36Labor and Employment Law @ 36.06 .

3519 6--148Labor and Employment Law @ 148.04 .

3520 6--154Labor and Employment Law @ 154.04 .

3521 1--1AThe Law of Life and Health Insurance @ 1A.04 .

3522 5--15The Law of Life and Health Insurance @ 15.02 .

3523 1--5LN Practice Guide: FL Civil Motion Practice @ 5.07 .

3524 Manual of Federal Practice 5th @ 1.31 .

3525 Manual of Federal Practice 5th @ 1.153 . Page 484 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3526 1--17MB Practice Guide: CA Pretrial Civil Procedure @ 17.09 .

3527 1--2MB Practice Guide: Fed Pretrial Civ Proc in CA @ 2.04 .

3528 1--2MB Practice Guide: Fed Pretrial Civ Proc in CA @ 2.06 .

3529 1--2MB Practice Guide: Fed Pretrial Civ Proc in CA @ 2.07 .

3530 1--3MB Practice Guide: Fed Pretrial Civ Proc in CA @ 3.09 .

3531 2--15BMedical Malpractice P 15B.06 .

3532 12--57Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 57.21 .

3533 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.31 .

3534 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.32 .

3535 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.33 .

3536 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.41 .

3537 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.42 .

3538 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.43 . Page 485 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3539 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.44 .

3540 15--103Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 103.45 .

3541 16--107Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 107.14 .

3542 17A--121Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 121.20 .

3543 17A--121Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 121.45 .

3544 18--131Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 131.21 .

3545 19--208Moore's Federal Practice --Civil @ 208.10 .

3546 1--2Moore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.22 .

3547 1--2Moore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 2.27 .

3548 1--5Moore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 5.12 .

3549 1--8Moore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 8.21 .

3550 3--25AMoore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 25A.21 .

3551 3--30Moore's Manual----Federal Practice and Procedure @ 30.55 .

3552 4--36National Labor Relations Act: Law & Practice @ 36.01 . Page 486 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3553 4--36National Labor Relations Act: Law & Practice @ 36.06 .

3554 2--30Bender's New York Insurance Law @ 30.01 .

3555 59--16NYITAX @ 16.01 .

3556 3--12Nimmer on Copyright @ 12.01 .

3557 1--1PATENT LAW DIGEST 8100 .

3558 19--94Personal Injury----Actions,Defenses, Damages @ 7 .

3559 25--122Personal Injury----Actions,Defenses, Damages @ 6 .

3560 1--213Practical Solutions for New York Lawyers @ 213.05 .

3561 Rhode Island Civil Practice and Procedure @ 811 .

3562 Rhode Island Civil Practice and Procedure @ 813 .

3563 2--13Securities Arbitration Procedure Manual @ 13--19 .

3564 2--9Goods in Transit @ 9.00 .

3565 3--11Trademark Protection and Practice @ 11.03 . Page 487 SHEPARD'S® - 463 U.S. 1 - 3568 Citing References

3566 2--45TRUST ADMINISTRATION AND TAXATION @ 45.18 .

3567 1--10Unclaimed Property Law @ 10.06 .

3568 2--6White, New York Business Entities @ B630.05 . Page 488

LEXSEE 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS VACATION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL.

No. 82--695

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

463 U.S. 1; 103 S. Ct. 2841; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83; 51 U.S.L.W. 4945; 4 Employee Beneﬁts Cas. (BNA) 1604

April 19, 1983, Argued June 24, 1983, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: ment of the claims. The court also held that appellant's claims did not turn on a question of federal law such that APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT federal courts would take jurisdiction. OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. OUTCOME: The court vacated the judgment for ap- DISPOSITION: pellee trust and remanded for disposition by the state 679 F.2d 1307, vacated and remanded. court, because under the "well--pleaded complaint" rule, appellant's action to levy against the plan assets or for a CASE SUMMARY: declaration of rights was neither created by ERISA nor turned on a substantial question of federal law, and thus could not be removed to federal court. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant state tax board sought review of an order from the United States Court CORE TERMS: declaratory judgment, federal law, levy, of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which denied appel- cause of action, state law, well--pleaded, removal, origi- lant's petition for rehearing, in appellant's state--law ac- nal jurisdiction, pre--emption,Declaratory Judgment Act, tion against appellee trust for a declaratory judgment as to federal jurisdiction, beneficiary, declaration, federal dis- its rights to levy on assets in an employee welfare benefit trict, federal question, duties, causes of action, juris- plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security dictional, fiduciary, federal--court, trust agreement, state Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1001 et seq. tax, removable, pre--empt, declaratory, entertain, patent, declaratory judgment action, federal cause of action, state OVERVIEW: Appellant state tax board filed a state-- cause of action court declaratory judgment action against appellee trust that sought a ruling as to appellant's rights in assets held LexisNexis(R) Headnotes by respondent in an employee welfare benefit plan, which was subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1001 et seq., and Tax Law > State & Local Taxes > Administration & which appellee removed to federal court. Holding that no Proceedings > General Overview federal--question jurisdiction existed, the court vacated [HN1] See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 18817 (1983). the judgment and instructed that it be remanded to the state court. The court held that as to federal question ju- Tax Law > State & Local Taxes > Administration & risdiction, Congress gave federal courts jurisdiction to Proceedings > General Overview hear only those cases in which a well--pleadedcomplaint [HN2] Any person who, upon notice by the Franchise Tax established either that federal law created the cause of Board, fails to comply with its request to withhold and to action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily de- transmit funds becomes personally liable for the amounts pended on resolution of a substantial question of federal identified in the notice. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 18818. law. The court held that ERISA created no counterpart to appellant's state--law claims and thus had not pre--empted Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > General Overview the causes of action ----even if ERISA precluded enforce- Civil Procedure > Removal > Elements > Federal Venue Page 489 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

[HN3] See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441. General Overview [HN10] A federal court does not have original jurisdiction Civil Procedure > Removal > Postremoval Remands > over a case in which the complaint presents a state--law Jurisdictional Defects cause of action, but also asserts that federal law deprives [HN4] If it appears before final judgment that a case was the defendant of a defense he may raise, or that a federal not properly removed, because it was not within the orig- defense the defendant may raise is not sufficient to de- inal jurisdiction of the United States district courts, the feat the claim. Although such allegations show that very district court must remand it to the state court from which likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the it was removed. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(c). Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff's original cause of action, arises under Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter the Constitution. For better or worse, under the present Jurisdiction > General Overview statutory scheme, a defendant may not remove a case to Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > Diversity of federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes Citizenship that the case "arises under" federal law. A right or im- Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > Federal Questions munity created by the Constitution or laws of the United [HN5] As for many cases where there is no diversity of States must be an element, and an essential one, of the citizenship between the parties, the propriety of removal plaintiff's cause of action. turns on whether the case falls within the original "federal question" jurisdiction of the United States district courts. Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Jurisdictional Sources [HN11] The well--pleaded complaint rule applies to the > Constitutional Sources original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as to their Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter removal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview [HN6] See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331. Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter [HN12] By unimpeachable authority, a suit brought upon Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview a state statute does not arise under an act of Congress or Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > the Constitution of the United States because prohibited General Overview thereby. Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Jurisdiction > Federal Questions Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > [HN7] U.S. Const. art. III "arising under" jurisdiction Federal Judgments > General Overview is broader than federal--question jurisdiction under 28 Estate, Gift & Trust Law > Trusts > Trustees > General U.S.C. S. § 1331. Overview Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Remedies > Equitable Relief > Declaratory Relief [HN8] A suit arises under the law that creates the cause [HN13] Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1060 (1980), a of action. party with an interest in property may bring an action for a declaration of another party's legal rights and duties Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter with respect to that property upon showing that there is an Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties [HN9] Whether a case is one arising under the of the parties. Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute, must be determined Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Case or Controversy from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement Requirements > Actual Disputes of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > State anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses Judgments > General Overview which it is thought the defendant may interpose. [HN14] To obtain declaratory relief in California, a party must plead facts showing the existence of an actual contro- Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter versy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Jurisdiction > Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > Page 490 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

Federal Judgments > General Overview Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. § [HN15] The operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 1132(a)(3), specifically grants trustees of ERISA--covered 28 U.S.C.S. § 2201, is procedural only. plans a cause of action for injunctive relief when their rights and duties under ERISA are at issue, and that ac- Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter tion is exclusively governed by federal law. Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Federal Judgments > General Overview Jurisdiction > Jurisdiction Over Actions > General [HN16] If, but for the availability of the declaratory judg- Overview ment procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > General Overview defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking. [HN20] A case is removable if a federal district court could have taken jurisdiction had the same complaint been Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter filed there. Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement Federal Judgments > General Overview Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & [HN17] Where the complaint in an action for declara- Remedies > General Overview tory judgment seeks in essence to assert a defense to an [HN21] See 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3). impending or threatened state court action, it is the character of the threatened action, and not of the defense, Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > which will determine whether there is federal--question Federal Common Law > General Overview jurisdiction in the district court. If the cause of action, Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement which the declaratory defendant threatens to assert, does Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & not itself involve a claim under federal law, it is doubtful Remedies > Federal Common Law if a federal court may entertain an action for a declaratory Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement judgment establishing a defense to that claim. This is du- Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & bious even though the declaratory complaint sets forth a Remedies > Federal Jurisdiction & Removal claim of federal right, if that right is in reality in the nature [HN22] Federal jurisdiction over suits under § 502 of of a defense to a threatened cause of action. Federal courts the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 will not seize litigations from state courts merely because (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3), is exclusive, and they one, normally a defendant, goes to federal court to begin are governed entirely by federal common law. his federal--law defense before the state court begins the case under state law. Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > Jurisdiction > General Overview Federal Judgments > General Overview Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > Federal Questions [HN23] A person subject to a scheme of federal regula- Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > tion may sue in federal court to enjoin application to him General Overview of conflicting state regulations. [HN18] Federal courts do not have original jurisdiction, nor do they acquire jurisdiction on removal, when a Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter federal question is presented by a complaint for a state Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview declaratory judgment, but jurisdiction would be lacking [HN24] The party who brings a suit is master to decide if the plaintiff had sought a federal declaratory judgment. what law he will rely upon, but it is an independent corollary of the well--pleaded complaint rule that a plaintiff Civil Procedure > Judgments > Entry of Judgments > may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary Enforcement & Execution > General Overview federal questions in a complaint. Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Remedies > Equitable Relief > Injunctive Relief Jurisdiction > Federal Questions > General Overview Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement Constitutional Law > Supremacy Clause > General Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & Overview Remedies > Federal Jurisdiction & Removal Labor & Employment Law > Employment Relationships [HN19] Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement > General Overview Page 491 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

[HN25] If a federal cause of action completely pre--empts SUMMARY: a state cause of action any complaint that comes within A California tax board filed a complaint in state court the scope of the federal cause of action necessarily "arises against a trust and its trustees alleging that the trust had under" federal law. failed to comply with tax levies issued under a state statute. The tax board requested damages and a decla- Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter ration that the trust and trustees were legally obligated Jurisdiction > Jurisdiction Over Actions > Exclusive to honor all future levies. The trust removed the case to Jurisdiction the United States District Court for the Central District Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement of California, which held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 USCS 1001 et seq.) Remedies > Federal Jurisdiction & Removal did not pre--emptCalifornia's power to levy on funds held [HN26] See 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(e)(1). in trust. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed (679 F2d 1307). Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & On appeal, the United States Supreme Court vacated Remedies > General Overview and remanded. In an opinion by Brennan, J., expressing Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement the unanimous view of the court, it was held that federal Income Security Act (ERISA) > Federal Preemption > courts had no jurisdiction to decide whether state tax au- General Overview thorities could enforce its levies against funds held in trust [HN27] See 29 U.S.C.S. § 1144(b)(2)(A). pursuant to an ERISA--covered employee benefit plan and to declare whether the levies were valid, since the case Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > did not arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 Federal Judgments > General Overview USCS 1331 and was not within the removal jurisdiction Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement of 28 USCS 1441. Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & Remedies > Equitable Relief > Declaratory Relief LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES: [HN28] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132, carefully enumerates the par- [***LEdHN1] ties entitled to seek relief thereunder; it does not provide COURTS §278.5 anyone other than participants, beneficiaries, or fiducia- CAUSES §78 ries with an express cause of action for a declaratory jurisdiction ----federal question ---- judgment. A suit for similar relief by some other party Headnote:[1A][1B][1C][1D][1E] does not "arise under" that provision. A federal court has no jurisdiction to decide whether state tax authorities may enforce levies against funds held in Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > General Overview trust pursuant to an ERISA--covered employee benefit Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Benefit Plans > plan and to declare whether the levies are valid notwith- General Overview standing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act Pensions & Benefits Law > Employee Retirement (29 USCS 1001 et seq.), since the case does not arise un- Income Security Act (ERISA) > Civil Claims & der ERISA within the meaning of 28 USCS 1331 and is Remedies > Federal Jurisdiction & Removal therefore not within the removal jurisdiction of 28 USCS [HN29] A suit by state tax authorities both to enforce its 1441. levies against funds held in trust pursuant to an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 29 [***LEdHN2] U.S.C.S. § 1132covered employee benefit plan, and to de- LABOR §7 clare the validity of the levies notwithstanding ERISA, is ERISA ----vacation trust ---- neither a creature of ERISA itself nor a suit of which the Headnote:[2] federal courts will take jurisdiction because it turns on a question of federal law. A construction laborers vacation trust, established by agreement between four construction employers' asso- DECISION: ciations and a construction laborers' district council to establish a mechanism for administering the provisions of Federal court held without jurisdiction to determine a collective bargaining agreement granting construction whether state may collect unpaid taxes by imposing levy workers a yearly paid vacation, is an "employee welfare on ERISA plan. plan" within the meaning of 3 of the Employee Retirement Page 492 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN2; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

Income Security Act (29 USCS 1001 et seq.). jurisdiction ----complaint ---- Headnote:[8A][8B] [***LEdHN3] The well--pleaded complaint rule, which provides that ERROR §246 whether a case arises under federal law must be deter- Supreme Court ----appellate jurisdiction ---- mined from what appears in the plaintiff's complaint, ap- Headnote:[3A][3B] plies to the original jurisdiction of the Federal District The United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdic- Courts as well as to their removal jurisdiction. tion under 28 USCS 1254(2) for purposes of determining whether lower federal courts had jurisdiction over a case [***LEdHN9] challenging a state statute. COURTS §257 jurisdiction ----federal law ---- [***LEdHN4] Headnote:[9] COURTS §255 For a case to arise under federal law, a right or immunity jurisdiction ----federal question ---- created by the Constitution or laws of the United States Headnote:[4A][4B] must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's Article III "arising under" jurisdiction is broader than fed- cause of action. eral question jurisdiction under 28 USCS 1331. [***LEdHN10] [***LEdHN5] COURTS §258 COURTS §259 jurisdiction ----federal question ---- jurisdiction ----federal question ---- Headnote:[10] Headnote:[5] The well--pleaded complaint rule, which provides that Whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or whether a case arises under federal law must be deter- a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the mined from what appears in the plaintiff's complaint, ap- jurisdictional statute, must be determined from what nec- plies to cases in which neither the obligation created by essarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own state law nor the defendant's factual failure to comply are claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything al- in dispute and both parties admit that the only question leged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is for decision is raised by a federal pre--emptiondefense. thought the defendant may interpose. [***LEdHN11] [***LEdHN6] COURTS §259 COURTS §259 jurisdiction ----federal question ---- jurisdiction ----federal question ---- Headnote:[11] Headnote:[6] A suit brought upon a state statute does not arise under an A federal court does not have original jurisdiction over a Act of Congress or the United States Constitution because case in which the complaint presents a state--law cause of prohibited thereby. action but also asserts that federal law deprives the defendant of a defense he may raise or that a federal defense the [***LEdHN12] defendant may raise is not sufficient to defeat the claim. CAUSES §46 entire case ---- [***LEdHN7] Headnote:[12] CAUSES §9 If any cause of action comes within the original juris- restriction ----federal law ---- diction of the federal courts, removal is proper as to the Headnote:[7] whole case. A defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case arises [***LEdHN13] under federal law. COURTS §257 jurisdiction ----federal question ---- [***LEdHN8] Headnote:[13] COURTS §255 Where the law that creates a cause of action is state law, CAUSES §9 original federal jurisdiction is unavailable unless it ap- Page 493 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN13; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 pears that some substantial, disputed question of federal [***LEdHN19] law is a necessary element of one of the well--pleaded COURTS §781 state claims or that a claim is really one of federal law. governing law ----declaratory judgments ---- Headnote:[19] [***LEdHN14] The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the COURTS §257 Federal Declaratory Judgment Act does not apply of its jurisdiction ----federal question ---- own force to state declaratory judgment statutes. Headnote:[14] Even though state law creates a plaintiff's causes of ac- [***LEdHN20] tion, the case might still arise under the laws of the United COURTS §258 States if a well--pleadedcomplaint establishes that its right JUDGMENTS §2 to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial CAUSES §6 question of federal law in dispute between the parties. jurisdiction ----federal question ---- Headnote:[20] [***LEdHN15] Federal courts do not have original jurisdiction under 28 CAUSES §67 USCS 1331, nor do they acquire jurisdiction on removal restriction ----federal defense ---- under 28 USCS 1441, when a federal question is presented Headnote:[15] by a complaint for a state declaratory judgment or a fed- A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis eral declaratory judgment if, but for the availability of the of a federal defense, including the defense of federal pre-- declaratory judgment procedure, the federal claim would emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's arise only as a defense to a state created action. complaint, and even if both parties admit the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. [***LEdHN21] COURTS §531 [***LEdHN16] JUDGMENTS §2 JUDGMENTS §10 power of Congress ----federal jurisdiction ---- state law ----complaint ---- Headnote:[21A][21B] Headnote:[16] It is not beyond the power of Congress to confer a right Under California law, a party seeking a declaratory judg- to a declaratory judgment in a case or controversy arising ment that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act under federal law, within the meaning of the Constitution (29 USCS 1001 et seq.) does not pre--emptstate law must or 28 USCS 1331, without regard to the judicial doctrine raise questions governed by ERISA in the complaint. which holds that federal jurisdiction is lacking if, but for the availability of the federal declaratory judgment pro- [***LEdHN17] cedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense to JUDGMENTS §10 a state--createdaction. state law ----pleading ---- Headnote:[17A][17B] [***LEdHN22] CAUSES §4 To obtain declaratory relief under California law, a party federal jurisdiction ---- must plead facts showing the existence of an actual contro- Headnote:[22A][22B] versy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. Under 28 USCS 1441, a case is removable if a Federal [***LEdHN18] District Court could have taken jurisdiction had the same COURTS §258 complaint been filed in federal court. JUDGMENTS §2 jurisdiction ----federal question ---- [***LEdHN23] Headnote:[18] JUDGMENTS §4 patent suits ---- Federal jurisdiction is lacking if, but for the availability Headnote:[23A][23B] of the federal declaratory judgment procedure, a federal claim would arise only as a defense to a state created Federal courts have jurisdiction over suits by alleged action. patent infringers to declare a patent invalid, since an infringement suit by the declaratory judgment defendant Page 494 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN23; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 would raise a federal question over which the federal The United States Supreme Court is reluctant, due to con- courts have exclusive jurisdiction. siderations of comity, to snatch cases which a state has brought from the courts of that state. [***LEdHN24] JUDGMENTS §1 [***LEdHN29] purpose ---- COURTS §261 Headnote:[24A][24B] JUDGMENTS §2 CAUSES §6 The declaratory remedy is designed to permit adjudication jurisdiction ----federal question ---- of either party's claims of rights. Headnote:[29] [***LEdHN25] A state's suit for a declaration of the validity of state law LABOR §7 is not within the original jurisdiction of the United States ERISA suits ----governing law ---- District Courts and is therefore not removable to the fed- Headnote:[25] eral courts. Federal law exclusively governs the cause of action [***LEdHN30] granted by 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income PLEADING §194 Security Act (29 USCS 1132(a)(3)) to trustees of ERISA-- motion to dismiss ----construction ---- covered plans for injunctive relief when their rights and Headnote:[30A][30B] duties under ERISA are at issue. A defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint will not [***LEdHN26] be treated as a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment JUDGMENTS §2 where the party never filed an answer or a counterclaim INJUNCTION §79(2) because it stipulated that the District Court could treat its federal court action ----jurisdiction ---- motion to dismiss as a cross--motion for summary judg- Headnote:[26A][26B] ment and the District Court decided the case on that basis. A person subject to a scheme of federal regulation may sue [***LEdHN31] in federal court to enjoin application to him of conflicting PLEADING §1 state regulations, and a declaratory judgment action by plaintiff ----applicable law ---- the same person does not necessarily run afoul of the ju- Headnote:[31] dicial doctrine which holds that jurisdiction is lacking if, but for the availability of the federal declaratory judgment The party who brings a suit is master to decide what law procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense he will rely upon. to a state--createdaction. [***LEdHN32] [***LEdHN27] CAUSES §66 INJUNCTION §90 federal question ----pleading ---- state tax ---- Headnote:[32] Headnote:[27A][27B] A plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead In order for a party to sue under the Employee Retirement necessary federal questions in a complaint. Income Security Act (29 USCS 1001 et seq.) to enjoin or to declare invalid a state tax levy, despite the Tax [***LEdHN33] Injunction Act (28 USCS 1341), it has to show either COURTS §278.5 that state law provides no speedy and efficient remedy or violation of labor contract ----federal law ---- that Congress intended 502 of the Employee Retirement Headnote:[33] Income Security Act (29 USCS 1132) to be an exception A suit involving a cause of action for violation of contracts to the Tax Injunction Act. between an employer and a labor organization is purely a creature of federal law, notwithstanding the fact that state [***LEdHN28] law would provide a cause of action in the absence of 301 COURTS §713 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS 185). state as party ----comity ---- Headnote:[28A][28B] [***LEdHN34] Page 495 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN34; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

COURTS §257 COURTS §278.5 federal cause of action ----pre--emption---- ERISA ----federal jurisdiction ---- Headnote:[34] Headnote:[39] If a federal cause of action completely pre--empts a state A suit for relief under 502 of the Employee Retirement cause of action any complaint that comes within the scope Income Security Act (29 USCS 1132) by a party other than of the federal cause of action necessarily arises under fed- a participant, beneﬁciary, or ﬁduciary of a plan covered eral law. by the Act does not arise under that provision.

[***LEdHN35] [***LEdHN40] CAUSES §154 LABOR §46 lack of jurisdiction ----dismissal ---- LMRA ----trust agreement ---- Headnote:[35A][35B] Headnote:[40A][40B] If an action is not within the class of cases over which A trust agreement established between employer asso- state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the ciations and a labor union to administer the provisions proper course for a Federal District Court to take after re- of a collective bargaining agreement granting workers a moval is to dismiss the case altogether, without reaching yearly paid vacation is not a contract covered by 301 of the merits. the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS 185).

[***LEdHN36] [***LEdHN41] COURTS §278.5 COURTS §278.5 LABOR §46 LMRA ----federal jurisdiction ---- LMRA ----jurisdiction ---- Headnote:[41A][41B] Headnote:[36A][36B] The connection between a state's causes of action to en- A state battery suit growing out of a violent strike would force its levies against funds held in trust pursuant to not arise under 301 of the Labor Management Relations an ERISA--covered employee benefit plan and to declare Act (29 USCS 185) simply because the strike may have whether the levies are valid and a suit to enforce the trust been a violation of an employer--unioncontract. agreement between employer associations and a labor union is too attenuated for either to arise under 301 of the [***LEdHN37] Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS 185). POSSESSIONS §21 pre--emption---- SYLLABUS: Headnote:[37] Appellee Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for An action by state tax authorities to enforce its levies Southern California (CLVT) was established by an agree- against funds held in trust pursuant to an ERISA--covered ment between construction industry employer associa- employee benefit plan is not itself pre--empted by the tions and a labor union to provide a mechanism for admin- Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 USCS istering the provisions of a collective--bargaining agree- 1001 et seq.) ment granting construction workers a yearly paid vacation. The trust qualifies as a "welfare benefit plan" within [***LEdHN38] the meaning of § 3 of the Employee Retirement Income LABOR §7 Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and hence is subject to reg- ERISA ----federal common law ---- ulation under ERISA. Appellant California Franchise Tax Headnote:[38] Board filed a complaint in California state court against CLVT and its trustees, alleging two causes of action: (1) The question of employee welfare benefit plan trustees' that CLVT had failed to comply with certain tax levies is- power to honor tax levies made upon them by state tax sued under a California statute, thereby becoming liable authorities, which involves the meaning and enforceabil- for damages for such failure, and (2) that, in view of the ity of trust agreement provisions forbidding the trustees defendants' contention that ERISA pre--empted state law to assign or otherwise alienate funds held in trust, comes and that the trustees lacked power to honor the levies, a within that class of questions for which Congress intended judgment be issued declaring the parties' respective rights. that federal courts create federal common law. CLVT removed the case to Federal District Court, which, after denying appellant's motion for remand to the state [***LEdHN39] court, held that ERISA did not pre--emptthe State's power Page 496 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN41; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 to levy on the funds held in trust by CLVT. The Court of tax levies is not of central concern to the federal statute. Appeals reversed. Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U.S. 557, distinguished. Even though ERISA may preclude enforcement of the Held: The case is not within the removal jurisdiction State's levy in the circumstances of this case, an action to conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1441. Pp. 7--28. enforce the levy is not itself preempted by ERISA. On the (a) Where there is no diversity of citizenship between face of a well--pleadedcomplaint there are many reasons the parties, as in this case, the propriety of removal turns completely unrelated to ERISA's provisions and purposes on whether the case falls within the original "federal ques- why the State may or may not be entitled to the relief it tion" jurisdiction of United States district courts under 28 seeks. Moreover, ERISA does not provide an alternative U. S. C. § 1331 (1976 ed., Supp. V). Under the "well-- cause of action in the State's favor to enforce its rights. pleaded complaint" rule, a defendant may not remove Nor does appellant's second cause of action arise under such a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's com- ERISA. ERISA enumerates the parties entitled to seek plaint establishes that the case "arises under" federal law a declaratory judgment under § 502 of that Act; it does within the meaning of § 1331, and it may not be removed not provide anyone other than participants, beneficiaries, on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense or fiduciaries of an ERISA--covered plan with an express of pre--emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the cause of action for a declaratory judgment on the issues complaint and both parties admit that the defense is the of this case. A suit for similar relief by some other party only question truly at issue. Pp. 7--12. does not "arise under" that provision. Pp. 22--27. (b) For appellant's first cause of action, a straight- COUNSEL: forward application of the well--pleaded complaint rule precludes original federal--courtjurisdiction, and thus the Patti S. Kitching, Deputy Attorney General of cause of action was not removable. California law estab- California, argued the cause for appellant. With her on lishes a set of conditions, without reference to federal law, the briefs were John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General, under which a tax levy may be enforced; federal law be- and Edmond B. Mamer, Deputy Attorney General. comes relevant only by way of a defense to an obligation James P. Watson argued the cause for appellees. With created entirely by state law, and then only if appellant him on the brief were George M. Cox and John S. Miller, has made out a valid claim for relief under state law. Pp. Jr. * 13--14. (c) Nor is appellant's second cause of action remov- * William D. Dexter filed a brief for the able to federal court. Under the federal jurisdictional Multistate Tax Commission as amicus curiae urg- statutes, federal courts do not have original jurisdiction, ing reversal. nor do they acquire jurisdiction on removal, when a fed- Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were eral question is presented by a complaint for a state filed by Solicitor General Lee, Stuart A. Smith, declaratory judgment, and where, if the plaintiff had T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Karen I. Ward, and Allen sought a federal declaratory judgment, federal jurisdiction H. Feldman for the United States; by J. Albert would be barred by Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Woll, Laurence Gold, and George Kaufmann for Co., 339 U.S. 667, under which federal jurisdiction is lack- the American Federation of Labor and Congress of ing if, but for the availability of the federal declaratory Industrial Organizations; by Thomas E. Stanton, judgment procedure, a federal claim would arise only as a Jr., and Victor J. Van Bourg for the Boards of defense to a state--createdaction. The situation presented Trustees of the Carpenters Vacation and Holiday by a State's suit for a declaration of the validity of state Trust Fund for Northern California et al.; and by law is sufficiently removed from the spirit of necessity and Eugene B. Granof and George J. Pantos for the careful limitation of federal district court jurisdiction that ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). informed this Court's statutory interpretation in Skelly Oil and Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General, 109, to convince the Court that, until Congress informs Christina G. Dunnell, Assistant Attorney General, it otherwise, such a suit is not within the district courts' and Ann Thacher Anderson filed a brief for the original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same suit brought State of Connecticut et al. as amici curiae. originally in state court is not removable. Pp. 14--22. JUDGES: (d) A suit by state tax authorities under a statute like the California tax levy statute involved here does not BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous "arise" under ERISA. The State's right to enforce its Court. Page 497 463 U.S. 1, *; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHN41; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

OPINIONBY: amount to CLVT, which places the money in an account for each employee. Once a year, CLVT BRENNAN distributes the money in each account to the employee for whom it is kept, provided the employee OPINION: complies with CLVT'sapplication procedures. Any [*3] [***427] [**2843] JUSTICE BRENNAN funds held for employees who fail to make a timely delivered the opinion of the Court. application are used to defray CLVT's administrative expenses. See generally Trust Agreement, Art. [***LEdHR1A] [1A]The principal question in IX, App. 45--51("The Plan"). This system was set dispute between the parties is whether the Employee up in large part because union members typically Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 work for several employers during the course of a Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. (1976 year. ed. and Supp. V), permits state tax authorities [*4] to collect unpaid state income taxes by levying on funds held in trust for the taxpayers under an ERISA--covered vacation n3 Article IX, para. 9.08, provides in part: benefit plan. The issue is an important one, which affects thousands of federally regulated trusts and all nonfederal "[No] payments due the Fund and no monies in tax collection systems, and it must eventually receive a vacation accounts established pursuant to the Plan definitive, uniform resolution. Nevertheless, for reasons shall be subject in any manner to anticipation, alien- involving perhaps more history than logic, we hold that ation, sale, transfer, assignment, encumbrance or the lower federal courts had no jurisdiction to decide the charge by any employee or any other persons and question in the case before us, and we vacate the judgment any such anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, as- and remand the case with instructions to remand it to the signment, pledge, encumbrance or charge shall be state court from which it was removed. void and ineffective. The money credited to a vacation account shall be subject to withdrawal and I distribution only at the times, in the manner and for [***LEdHR2] [2] None of the relevant facts is in the purposes specified in this Agreement." Id., at dispute. Appellee Construction Laborers Vacation Trust 49. for Southern California (CLVT) n1 is a trust established Section 404(a)(1) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § by an agreement between four associations of employers 1104(a)(1) (1976 ed. and Supp. V), requires plan active in the construction industry in southern California trustees to discharge their duties "solely in the in- and the Southern California District Council of Laborers, terest of the participants and beneficiaries," "for the an arm of the District Council and affiliated locals of exclusive purpose of . . . providing benefits . . . and the Laborers' [**2844] International Union of North . . . defraying reasonable expenses of administering America. The purpose of the agreement and trust was the plan," and "in accordance with the documents to establish a mechanism for administering the provi- and instruments governing the plan" insofar as they sions of a collective--bargaining agreement that grants are consistent with ERISA. §§ 1104(a)(1)(A), (D). construction workers a yearly paid vacation. n2 The trust agreement expressly proscribes any assignment, pledge, or encumbrance of [*5] funds held in trust by CLVT. Appellant Franchise Tax Board is a California agency n3 The Plan [***428] that CLVT administers is unques- charged with enforcement of that State's personal income tionably an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the tax law. California law authorizes appellant to require any meaning of § 3 of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1002(1), and person in possession of [HN1] "credits or other personal CLVT and its individual trustees are thereby subject to property or other things of value, belonging to a taxpayer" extensive regulation under Titles I and III of ERISA. "to withhold . . . the amount of any tax, interest, or penalties due from the taxpayer . . . and to transmit the amount n1 Along with CLVT itself, CLVT's individ- withheld to the Franchise Tax Board." Cal. Rev. & Tax. ual trustees are also appellees. At various points Code Ann. § 18817 (West Supp. 1983). [HN2] Any per- throughout this opinion, the trust and its trustees son who, upon notice by the Franchise Tax Board, fails to are referred to collectively as "CLVT." comply with its request to withhold and to transmit funds becomes personally liable for the amounts identified in the notice. § 18818. n2 As part of the hourly compensation due bar- In June 1980, the Franchise Tax Board filed a com- gaining unit members, employers pay a certain plaint in state court against CLVT and its trustees. Under Page 498 463 U.S. 1, *5; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2844; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***428; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 the heading "First Cause of Action," appellant alleged that for unpaid taxes or unpaid unemployment insur- CLVT had failed to comply with three levies issued under ance contributions upon benefits due a participant § 18817, n4 concluding [*6] with the allegation that it or beneficiary under the Plan is pre--empted under had been "damaged in a sum . . . not to exceed $380.56 ERISA section 514 [29 U. S. C. § 1144]." App. plus interest from June 1, 1980." App. 3--8. Under the 71. Accordingly, on January 7, 1980, counsel for heading "Second Cause of [**2845] Action," appellant CLVT furnished appellant a copy of the opinion let- incorporated its previous allegations and added: ter, informed appellant that CLVT lacked the power to honor appellant's levies, and stated their inten- "There was at the time of the levies alleged above and tion to recommend that CLVT should disburse the continues to be an actual controversy between the parties funds it had withheld to the employees in question. concerning their respective legal rights and duties. The Board [appellant] contends that defendants [CLVT] are obligated and required by law to pay over to the Board n5 The complaint does not identify statutory all amounts held . . . in favor of the Board's delinquent authority for the relief requested; indeed, the only taxpayers. On the other hand, defendants contend that statute mentioned on the face of the complaint is section 514 of ERISA [***429] preempts state law and ERISA. See infra, at 13. that the trustees lack the power to honor the levies made upon them by the State of California. [***LEdHR3A] [3A]CLVT removed the case to [*7] "[Defendants] will continue to refuse to honor the United States District Court for the Central District the Board's levies in this regard. Accordingly, a dec- of California, and the court denied the Franchise Tax laration by this court of the parties' respective rights is Board's motion for remand to the state court. On the required to fully and finally resolve this controversy." Id., merits, the District Court ruled that ERISA did not pre-- at 8--9. empt the State's power to levy on funds held in trust by CLVT. CLVT appealed, and the Court of Appeals In a prayer for relief, appellant requested damages for reversed. 679 F.2d 1307 (CA9 1982). On petition for re- defendants' failure to honor the levies and a declaration hearing, the Franchise Tax Board renewed its argument that defendants are "legally obligated to honor all future that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the com- levies by the Board." Id., at 9. n5 plaint in this case. The petition for rehearing was denied, and an appeal was taken to this Court. We postponed n4 At several points in 1977 and 1978, appel- consideration of our jurisdiction pending argument on lant issued notices to CLVT requesting it to with- the merits. 459 U.S. 1085 (1982). We now hold that this hold and to transmit approximately $380 in unpaid case was not within the removal jurisdiction conferred by taxes, interest, and penalties due from three indi- 28 U. S. C. § 1441, and therefore we do not reach the viduals. CLVT did not dispute that the individuals merits of the preemption question. n6 in question were beneficiaries of its trust or that it was then holding vacation benefit funds for them. [***LEdHR3B] [3B] In each case, however, it acknowledged receipt of appellant's notice and informed appellant that it had n6 At least for purposes of determining whether requested an opinion letter from the Administrator the courts below had jurisdiction over this case, for Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs of the we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § United States Department of Labor as to whether 1254(2). it was permitted under ERISA to honor appellant's levy. CLVT also informed appellant that it would II withhold the funds from the individual workers until it received an opinion from the Department of The jurisdictional structure at issue in this case has Labor, but that it would not transmit the funds to remained basically unchanged for the past century. With the Franchise Tax Board. exceptions not relevant here, [HN3] "any civil action brought in a [*8] State court of which the district courts Appellant took no immediate action to enforce of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be its levy, and in January 1980 CLVT finally re- removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the dis- ceived the opinion letter it had requested. The trict court of the United States for the district and division opinion letter concluded: "[It] is the position of the embracing the place where such action is pending." Ibid. Department of Labor that the process of any state [HN4] If it appears before final judgment that a case was judicial or administrative agency seeking to levy not properly removed, because it was not within the orig- Page 499 463 U.S. 1, *8; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2845; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHR3B; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 inal jurisdiction of the United States district courts, the suit arises [*9] under the law that creates the cause of district court must remand it to the state court from which action." American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler it was removed. See 28 U. S. C. § 1447(c). For this case---- Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916). However, it is well settled [HN5] as for many cases where there is no diversity of that Justice Holmes' test is more useful for describing the citizenship between the parties ----the propriety of removal vast majority of cases that come within the district courts' turns on whether the case falls within the original "federal original jurisdiction than it is for describing which cases question" jurisdiction of the United States district courts: are beyond district court jurisdiction. We have often held [HN6] "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction that a case "arose under" federal law where the vindica- of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or tion of a right under state law necessarily turned on some treaties of the United States." 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (1976 construction of federal law, see, e. g., Smith v. Kansas City ed., Supp. V). n7 Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921); Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U.S. 486 (1917), and even the most ardent proponent n7 ERISA may also be an "Act of Congress reg- of the Holmes test has admitted that it has been rejected ulating commerce" within the meaning of 28 U. S. as an exclusionary principle, see Flournoy v. Wiener, 321 C. § 1337 (1976 ed., Supp. V), but we have not dis- U.S. 253, 270--272 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). tinguished between the "arising under" standards See also T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 827 of § 1337 and § 1331. See, e. g., Skelly Oil Co. v. (CA2 1964) (Friendly, J.). Leading commentators have Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950). suggested that for purposes of § 1331 an action "arises under" federal law "if in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the [***430] [***LEdHR4A] [4A]Since the first ver- correctness and the applicability to his case of a propo- sion of § 1331 was enacted, Act of Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 137, sition of federal law." P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, § 1, 18 Stat. 470, the statutory phrase "arising under the & H. Wechsler, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" has re- and the Federal System 889 (2d ed. 1973) (hereinafter sisted all attempts to frame a single, precise definition for Hart & Wechsler); cf. T. B. Harms Co., supra, at 827 ("a [**2846] determining which cases fall within, and which case may 'arise under' a law of the United States if the cases fall outside, the original jurisdiction of the district complaint discloses a need for determining the meaning courts. Especially when considered in light of § 1441's or application of such a law"). removal jurisdiction, the phrase "arising under" masks a welter of issues regarding the interrelation of federal and [***LEdHR5] [5] [***LEdHR6] [6] state authority and the proper management of the federal [***LEdHR7] [7] [***LEdHR8A] [8A] judicial system. n8 [***LEdHR9] [9]One powerful doctrine has emerged, however ---- the "well--pleaded [***431] complaint" [***LEdHR4B] [4B] rule ---- which as a practical matter severely limits the number of cases in which state law "creates the cause n8 The statute's "arising under" language tracks of action" that may be initiated in or removed to [*10] similar language in Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution, federal district court, thereby avoiding more--or--less which has been construed as permitting Congress automatically a number of potentially serious federal-- to extend federal jurisdiction to any case of which state conflicts. federal law potentially "forms an ingredient," see Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 823 (1824), and its limited legislative history suggests that the 44th Congress may have meant to "[Whether] a [HN9] case is one arising under the "confer the whole power which the Constitution Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the conferred," 2 Cong. Rec. 4986 (1874) (remarks of sense of the jurisdictional statute, . . . must be determined Sen. Carpenter). Nevertheless, we have only re- from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement cently reaffirmed what has long been recognized ---- of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by that "[HN7] Art. III 'arising under' jurisdiction is anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses broader than federal--question jurisdiction under § which it is thought the defendant may interpose." Taylor 1331." Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75--76(1914). 461 U.S. 480, 495 (1983). Thus, [HN10] a federal court does not have original jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint presents The most familiar definition of the statutory "arising a state--law cause of action, but also asserts that federal under" limitation is Justice Holmes' statement, [HN8] "A law deprives the defendant of a defense he may raise, Page 500 463 U.S. 1, *10; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2846; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***431; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

Taylor v. Anderson, supra; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. have not been adopted. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908), or that a federal defense the defendant may raise is not sufficient to defeat the For many cases in which federal law becomes relevant claim, Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. only insofar as [***432] it sets bounds for the operation 454 (1894). "Although such allegations show that very of state authority, the well--pleadedcomplaint rule makes [**2847] likely, in the course of the litigation, a question sense as a quick rule of thumb. Describing the case before under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the Court in Gully, n10 Justice Cardozo wrote: the suit, that is, the plaintiff's original cause of action, arises under the Constitution." Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, supra, at 152. For better or worse, under the present statutory scheme as it has existed since 1887, "Petitioner will have to prove that the state law has been a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless obeyed before the question will be reached whether any- the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case "arises thing in its provisions or in administrative conduct under under" federal law. n9 "[A] right or immunity created by it is inconsistent with the federal rule. If what was done the [*11] Constitution or laws of the United States must by the taxing officers in levying the tax in suit did not be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause amount in substance under the law of Mississippi to an of action." Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 assessment of the shareholders, but in substance as [*12] U.S. 109, 112 (1936). well as in form was an assessment of the bank alone, the conclusion will be inescapable that there was neither [***LEdHR8B] [8B] tax nor debt, apart from any barriers Congress may have built. On the other hand, a finding upon evidence that n9 [HN11] The well--pleaded complaint rule the Mississippi law has been obeyed may compose the applies to the original jurisdiction of the district controversy altogether, leaving no room for a contention courts as well as to their removal jurisdiction. See that the federal law has been infringed. The most that one Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco Inc., 415 U.S. 125, can say is that a question of federal law is lurking in the 127 (1974) (per curiam) (case brought originally background, just as farther in the background there lurks a in federal court); Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. question of constitutional law, the question of state power Superior Court, 366 U.S. 656, 663 (1961) (attack in our federal form of government. A dispute so doubtful on jurisdiction of state court). and conjectural, so far removed from plain necessity, is It is possible to conceive of a rational jurisdic- unavailing to extinguish the jurisdiction of the states." Id., tional system in which the answer as well as the at 117. complaint would be consulted before a determi- nation was made whether the case "arose under" n10 Gully was a suit by Mississippi tax authori- federal law, or in which original and removal ju- ties, claiming that the First National Bank had failed risdiction were not coextensive. Indeed, until the to make good on a contract with its predecessor cor- 1887 amendments to the 1875 Act, Act of Mar. 3, poration whereby, according to the State, the bank 1887, ch. 373, 24 Stat. 552, as amended by Act had promised to pay the predecessor's tax liabili- of Aug. 13, 1888, ch. 866, 25 Stat. 433, the well-- ties. 299 U.S., at 111--112. It had been removed to pleaded complaint rule was not applied in full force federal court, and the motion for remand had been to cases removed from state court; the defendant's defeated, on the ground that the State's "power to petition for removal could furnish the necessary lay a tax upon the shares of national banks has its guarantee that the case necessarily presented a sub- origin and measure in the provisions of a federal stantial question of federal law. See Railroad Co. statute" and that "by necessary implication a plain- v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135, 140 (1880); Gold-- tiff counts upon the statute in suing for the tax." Id., Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199, 203-- at 112. 204 (1878). Commentators have repeatedly proposed that some mechanism be established to per- [***LEdHR10] [10] [***LEdHR11] [11] The mit removal of cases in which a federal defense may rule, however, may produce awkward results, especially be dispositive. See, e. g., American Law Institute, in cases in which neither the obligation created by state Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State law [**2848] nor the defendant's factual failure to com- and Federal Courts § 1312, pp. 188--194 (1969) ply are in dispute, and both parties admit that the only (ALI Study); Wechsler, Federal Jurisdiction and the question for decision is raised by a federal pre--emption Revision of the Judicial Code, 13 Law & Contemp. defense. Nevertheless, it has been correctly understood Prob. 216, 233--234 (1948). But those proposals Page 501 463 U.S. 1, *12; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2848; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHR11; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 to apply in such situations. n11 As we said in Gully: [***LEdHR1B] [1B] [***LEdHR14] [14] [HN12] "By unimpeachable authority, a suit brought upon [***LEdHR15] [15]Even though state law creates ap- a state statute does not arise under an act of Congress or pellant's causes of action, its case might still "arise under" the Constitution of the United States because prohibited the laws of the United States if a well--pleadedcomplaint thereby." Id., at 116. n12 established that its right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dis- n11 E. g., Trent Realty Associates v. First pute between the parties. For appellant's first cause of Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 657 F.2d 29, 34-- action ----to enforce its levy, under § 18818 ----a straight- 35 (CA3 1981); First National Bank of Aberdeen forward application of the well--pleaded complaint rule v. Aberdeen National Bank, 627 F.2d 843, 850-- precludes original federal--court jurisdiction. California 852 (CA8 1980); Washington v. American League law establishes a set of conditions, without reference to of Professional Baseball Clubs, 460 F.2d 654, 660 federal law, under which a tax levy may be enforced; fed- (CA9 1972); cf. First Federal Savings & Loan eral law becomes relevant only by way of a defense to an Assn. of Boston v. Greenwald, 591 F.2d 417, 422-- obligation created entirely by state law, and then only if 423 (CA1 1979). appellant has made out a valid claim for relief under state law. See supra, at 11--12. The well--pleaded complaint rule was framed to deal with precisely such a situation. n12 Note, however, that a claim of federal pre-- As we discuss [*14] above, since 1887 it has been set- emption does not always arise as a defense to a co- tled law that a case may not be removed to federal court ercive action. See n. 20, infra. And, of course, the on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense absence of original jurisdiction does not mean that of pre--emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the there is no federal forum in which a pre--emption plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that defense may be heard. If the state courts reject the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. a claim of federal pre--emption, that decision may [***LEdHR16] [16] [***LEdHR17A] ultimately be reviewed on appeal by this Court. [17A]Appellant's declaratory judgment action poses a See, e. g., Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. more difficult problem. Whereas the question of federal De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982) (deciding pre-- pre--emptionis relevant to appellant's first cause of action emption question at issue in Trent Realty, supra). only as a potential defense, it is a necessary element of the declaratory judgment claim. Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code [*13] [***433] III Ann. § 1060 (West 1980), [HN13] a party with an interest [**2849] in property may bring an action for a declara- [***LEdHR12] [12] [***LEdHR13] [13]Simply tion of another party's legal rights and duties with respect to state these principles is not to apply them to the case to that property upon showing that there is an "actual at hand. Appellant's complaint sets forth two "causes of controversy relating to the legal rights and duties" of the action," one of which expressly refers to ERISA; if ei- parties. The only questions in dispute between the parties ther comes within the original jurisdiction of the federal in this case concern the rights and duties of CLVT and its courts, removal was proper as to the whole case. See 28 trustees under ERISA. Not only does appellant's request U. S. C. § 1441 (c). Although appellant's complaint does for a declaratory judgment under California law clearly not specifically assert any particular statutory entitlement encompass questions [***434] governed by ERISA, but for the relief it seeks, the language of the complaint sug- appellant's complaint identifies no other questions as a gests (and the parties do not dispute) that appellant's "first subject of controversy between the parties. Such ques- cause of action" states a claim under Cal. Rev. & Tax. tions must be raised in a well--pleaded complaint for a Code Ann. § 18818 (West Supp. 1983), see supra, at 5-- declaratory judgment. n13 Therefore, it is clear on the 6, and its "second cause of action" states a claim under face of its well--pleadedcomplaint that appellant may not California's Declaratory Judgment Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. obtain the relief it seeks in its second cause of action Code Ann. § 1060 (West 1980). As an initial proposition, ("[that] the court declare defendants legally obligated to then, the "law that creates the cause of action" is state honor all future levies by the Board upon [CLVT]," App. law, and original federal jurisdiction is unavailable unless 9) without a construction of ERISA and/or an adjudica- it appears that some substantial, disputed question of fed- tion of its pre--emptive effect and constitutionality ---- all eral law is a necessary element of one of the well--pleaded questions of federal law. state claims, or that one or the other claim is "really" one of federal law. [***LEdHR17B] [17B] A n13 To [HN14] obtain declaratory relief in Page 502 463 U.S. 1, *14; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2849; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHR17B; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

California, a party must plead "facts showing the alone Congress had authorized the District Courts to ad- existence of an actual controversy relating to the judicate ----were not impliedly repealed or modified." 339 legal rights and duties of the parties." Wellenkamp U.S., at 671--672. v. Bank of America, 21 Cal. 3d 943, 947, 582 P. 2d 970, 972 (1978). We then observed that, under the well--pleadedcomplaint rule, an action by Phillips to enforce its contract would not present a federal question. Id., at 672. [**2850] Skelly [*15] Appellant argues that original federal--court Oil has come to stand for the proposition that [HN16] jurisdiction over such a complaint is foreclosed by our "if, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment decision in Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a de- U.S. 667 (1950). As we shall see, however, Skelly Oil is fense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking." not directly controlling. 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice In Skelly Oil, Skelly Oil and Phillips had a contract, and Procedure § 2767, pp. 744--745 (2d ed. 1983). Cf. for the sale of natural gas, that entitled the seller ----Skelly Public Service Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. Oil ----to terminate the contract at any time after December 237, 248 (1952) (dictum). n14 1, 1946, if the Federal Power Commission had not yet issued a certificate of convenience and necessity to a third n14 In Wycoff Co., a company that transported party, a pipeline company to whom Phillips intended to films between various points within the State of resell the gas purchased from Skelly Oil. Their dispute Utah sought a declaratory judgment that a state began when the Federal Power Commission informed the regulatory commission had no power to forbid it pipeline company on November 30 that it would issue a to transport over routes authorized by the Interstate conditional certificate, but did not make its order public Commerce Commission. However, "[it] offered no until December 2. By this time Skelly Oil had notified evidence whatever of any past, pending or threat- Phillips of its decision to terminate their contract. Phillips ened action by the Utah Commission." 344 U.S., brought an action in United States District Court under at 240. We held that there was no jurisdiction, es- the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, sentially because the dispute had "not matured to a seeking a declaration that the contract was still in effect. point where we can see what, if any, concrete con- 339 U.S., at 669--671. troversy will develop." Id., at 245. We also added: [***LEdHR18] [18]There was no diversity between [HN17] "Where the complaint in an action for the parties, and we held that Phillips' claim was not within declaratory judgment seeks in essence to assert a the federal--questionjurisdiction conferred by § 1331. We defense to an impending or threatened state court reasoned: action, it is the character of the threatened ac- "'[The] operation [HN15] of the Declaratory tion, and not of the defense, which will determine Judgment Act is procedural only.' Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. whether there is federal--questionjurisdiction in the Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240. Congress enlarged the range District Court. If the cause of action, which the of remedies available in the federal courts but did not ex- declaratory defendant threatens to assert, does not tend their jurisdiction. When concerned as we are with itself involve a claim under federal law, it is doubt- the power of the inferior federal courts to entertain litiga- ful if a federal court may entertain an action for a tion within the restricted area to which the Constitution declaratory judgment establishing a defense to that and Acts of Congress confine them, 'jurisdiction' means claim. This is dubious even though the declaratory the kinds of issues which give right of entrance to fed- complaint sets forth a claim of federal right, if that eral courts. Jurisdiction in this sense was not altered by right is in reality in the nature of a defense to a the Declaratory Judgment Act. Prior to that Act, a fed- threatened cause of action. Federal courts will not eral court would entertain a suit on a contract only if the seize litigations from state courts merely because plaintiff asked for an immediately enforceable remedy one, normally a defendant, goes to federal court to [*16] like money damages or an injunction, but such re- begin his federal--law defense before the state court lief could only be given if the requisites of jurisdiction, begins the case under state law." Id., at 248. in the sense of a federal right or diversity, provided foundation for resort to the federal courts. The Declaratory [*17] [***LEdHR19] [19]1. As an initial mat- Judgment Act allowed [***435] relief to be given by ter, we must decide whether the doctrine of Skelly Oil way of recognizing the plaintiff's right even though no limits original federal--court jurisdiction under § 1331 ---- immediate enforcement of it was asked. But the require- and by extension removal jurisdiction under § 1441 ---- ments of jurisdiction ----the limited subject matters which Page 503 463 U.S. 1, *17; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2850; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***LEdHR19; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 when a question of federal law appears on the face of a to state declaratory judgment actions as [**2851] well. well--pleadedcomplaint for a state--law declaratory judg- If federal district courts could take jurisdiction, either ment. Apparently, it is a question of first impression. n15 originally or by removal, of state declaratory judgment As the passage quoted above makes clear, Skelly Oil re- claims raising questions of federal law, without regard lied significantly on the precise contours of the federal to the doctrine of Skelly Oil, the federal Declaratory Declaratory Judgment Act as well as of § 1331. Cf. 339 Judgment Act ----with the limitations Skelly Oil read into U.S., at 674 (stressing the need to respect "the limited pro- it ----would become a dead letter. For any case in which a cedural purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act"). The state declaratory judgment action was available, litigants Court's emphasis that the Declaratory Judgment Act was could get into federal court for a declaratory judgment intended to affect only the remedies available in a federal despite our interpretation of § 2201, simply by plead- district court, not the court's jurisdiction, was critical to ing an adequate state claim for a declaration of federal the Court's reasoning. Our interpretation of the federal law. Having interpreted the Declaratory Judgment Act of Declaratory Judgment Act in [***436] Skelly Oil does 1934 to include certain limitations on the jurisdiction of not apply of its own force to state declaratory judgment federal district courts to entertain declaratory judgment statutes, many of which antedate the federal statute, see suits, we should be extremely hesitant to interpret the Developments in the Law ---- Declaratory Judgments ---- Judiciary Act of 1875 and its 1887 amendments in a way 1941--1949, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 787, 790--791 (1949). n16 that renders the limitations in the later statute nugatory. Cf. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. Therefore, we hold that under the jurisdictional statutes as 249, 264--265 (1933) [*18] (Supreme Court appellate they now stand n17 [*19] [HN18] federal courts do not jurisdiction over federal questions in a state declaratory have original jurisdiction, nor do they acquire jurisdic- judgment). tion on removal, when a federal question is presented by a complaint for a state declaratory judgment, but Skelly n15 The existence of this question was noted Oil would bar jurisdiction if the plaintiff had sought a by the leading proponent of declaratory judgments federal declaratory judgment. during the interim between this Court's first indi- cation that state declaratory judgment actions did [***LEdHR21B] [21B] not fall outside Art. III's "case or controversy" n17 It is not beyond the power of Congress to limitation and passage of the federal Declaratory confer a right to a declaratory judgment in a case Judgment Act, but the issue did not come before or controversy arising under federal law ----within us. See E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 298-- the meaning of the Constitution or of § 1331 ---- 300 (1934). without regard to Skelly Oil's particular application n16 California's Declaratory Judgment Act was of the well--pleadedcomplaint rule. The 1969 ALI enacted 13 years before the federal Act. See ch. report strongly criticized the Skelly Oil doctrine: 463, § 1, 1921 Cal. Stats. 689. California may "If no other changes were to be made in federal well regard its statute as having a more substan- question jurisdiction, it is arguable that such lan- tive purpose than the federal Act as interpreted in guage, and the historical test it seems to embody, Skelly Oil. According to the leading commentator should be repudiated." ALI Study § 1311, at 170-- on California procedure: "Declaratory relief is not 171. Nevertheless, Congress has declined to make a special proceeding. It is an action, classified as such a change. At this point, any adjustment in the equitable by reason of the type of relief offered . . . ." system that has evolved under the Skelly Oil rule 3 B. Witkin, California Procedure § 705(c), p. 2329 must come from Congress. (2d ed. 1971). See also Adams v. Cook, 15 Cal. 2d 352, 362, 101 P. 2d 484, 489 (1940); cf. Mefford v. [***LEdHR22A] [22A] [***LEdHR23A] Tulare, 102 Cal. App. 2d 919, 922, 228 P. 2d 847, [23A] [***LEdHR24A] [24A] [***LEdHR25] [25] 849 (1951) (declaratory judgment is intended "to [***LEdHR26A] [26A] [***LEdHR27A] [27A]2. The liquidate uncertainties and controversies"). But cf. question, then, is whether a federal district court could Western Title Guaranty Co. v. Sacramento & San take jurisdiction of appellant's declaratory judgment claim Joaquin Drainage Dist., 235 Cal. App. 2d 815, 822, had it been brought under 28 U. S. C. § 2201. n18 The 45 Cal. Rptr. 578, 582 (1965) (citing federal cases). [***437] application of Skelly Oil to such a suit is somewhat unclear. Federal courts have regularly taken original [***LEdHR20] [20] [***LEdHR21A] [21A]Yet jurisdiction over declaratory judgment suits in which, if while Skelly Oil itself is limited to the federal Declaratory the declaratory judgment defendant brought a coercive Judgment Act, fidelity to its spirit leads us to extend it action to enforce its rights, that suit would necessarily Page 504 463 U.S. 1, *19; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2851; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***437; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 present a federal question. n19 Section 502(a)(3) [HN19] ticipant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any of ERISA specifically grants trustees of ERISA--covered act or practice which violates any provision of this plans like CLVT a cause of action for [*20] injunctive re- subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain lief when their rights and duties under ERISA are at issue, other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such and that action is exclusively governed by federal law. n20 violations or (ii) to enforce any provision of this If CLVT could have [**2852] sought an injunction under subchapter . . . ." 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3). ERISA against application to it of state regulations that require acts inconsistent with ERISA, n21 does a declara- See also n. 26, infra ([HN22] federal jurisdiction tory judgment suit by the State "arise under" federal law? over suits under § 502 is exclusive, and they are governed entirely by federal common law). [***LEdHR22B] [22B] [***LEdHR26B] [26B]Even if ERISA did not n18 It may seem odd that, for purposes of de- expressly provide jurisdiction, CLVT might have termining whether removal was proper, we analyze been able to obtain federal jurisdiction under the a claim brought under state law, in state court, by doctrine applied in some cases that [HN23] a per- a party who has continuously objected to district son subject to a scheme of federal regulation may court jurisdiction over its case, as if that party had sue in federal court to enjoin application to him been trying to get original federal--court jurisdic- of conflicting state regulations, and a declaratory tion all along. That irony, however, is a more-- judgment action by the same person does not neces- or--lessconstant feature of the removal statute, un- sarily run afoul of the Skelly Oil doctrine. See, e. g., der which [HN20] a case is removable if a federal Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, district court could have taken jurisdiction had the 506--508 (1972); Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, 530 same complaint been filed. See Wechsler, Federal F.2d 1295, 1303--1306 (CA9 1975), aff'd sub nom. Jurisdiction and the Revision of the Judicial Code, Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977); 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 216, 234 (1948). First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of Boston v. Greenwald, 591 F.2d, at 423, and n. 8. [***LEdHR23B] [23B] [***LEdHR24B] [24B] [***LEdHR27B] [27B] n19 For instance, federal courts have consis- n21 We express no opinion, however, whether a tently adjudicated suits by alleged patent infringers party in CLVT's position could sue under ERISA to to declare a patent invalid, on the theory that an enjoin or to declare invalid a state tax levy, despite infringement suit by the declaratory judgment de- the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341. See fendant would raise a federal question over which California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. See (1982). To do so, it would have to show either that E. Edelmann & Co. v. Triple--A Specialty Co., 88 state law provided no "speedy and efficient rem- F.2d 852 (CA7 1937); Hart & Wechsler 896--897. edy" or that Congress intended § 502 of ERISA to Taking jurisdiction over this type of suit is consis- be an exception to the Tax Injunction Act. tent with the dictum in Public Service Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 248 (1952), see n. 14, supra, in which we stated only that a declaratory [***LEdHR28A] [28A] [***LEdHR29] [29] judgment plaintiff could not get original federal ju- [***LEdHR30A] [30A]We think not. We have always risdiction if the anticipated lawsuit by the declara- interpreted what Skelly Oil called "the current of jurisdic- tory judgment defendant would not "arise under" tional legislation since the Act of March 3, 1875," 339 federal law. It is also consistent with the nature of U.S., at 673, with an eye to practicality and necessity. the declaratory remedy itself, which was designed "What is needed is something of that common--sense ac- to permit adjudication of either party's claims of commodation of judgment [***438] to kaleidoscopic right. See E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 15-- situations which characterizes the law in its treatment 18, 23--25(1934). of problems of causation . . . a selective process which picks the substantial causes out of the web and lays the other ones [*21] aside." Gully v. First National Bank in n20 Section 502(a)(3) provides: Meridian, 299 U.S., at 117--118. There are good reasons why the federal courts should not entertain suits by the "[A civil action may be brought] by [HN21] a par- States to declare the validity of their regulations despite Page 505 463 U.S. 1, *21; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2852; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***438; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 possibly conflicting federal law. States are not significantly prejudiced by an inability to come to federal court [***LEdHR30B] [30B] for a declaratory judgment in advance of a possible injunctive suit by a person subject to federal regulation. They n24 CLVT suggests that we treat the motion to have a variety of means by which they can enforce their dismiss appellant's complaint it filed in the District own laws in their own courts, and they do not suffer if the Court as a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment pre--emption questions such enforcement may raise are under § 502 of ERISA, which might then provide tested there. n22 The express grant of federal jurisdiction an independent jurisdictional basis for reaching the in ERISA is limited to suits brought by certain parties, see merits of the pre--emption issue in this case. Brief infra, at 25, as to whom Congress presumably determined for Appellees 9--11; see First Federal Savings & that a right to enter federal court was necessary to further Loan Assn. of Boston v. Greenwald, supra, at 423; the statute's purposes. n23 It did not go so far as to provide Wong v. Bacon, 445 F.Supp. 1177, 1183--1184(ND that any suit against such parties must also be brought in Cal. 1977). Apparently, CLVT never filed an an- federal court when they themselves did not choose to sue. swer or a counterclaim in this case because it stip- The situation presented by a State's suit for a declaration ulated that the District Court could treat its motion of the validity of state law is sufficiently removed from to dismiss as a cross--motion for summary judg- the spirit of necessity and careful limitation of district ment, and the court decided the case on that basis. court jurisdiction [*22] that informed our statutory in- See App. to Juris. Statement 17 (District Court's terpretation in Skelly Oil and Gully to convince us that, "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"). Under until Congress informs us otherwise, such a suit is not the circumstances, we decline to adopt such a broad within the original jurisdiction of the United States dis- construction of CLVT's pleadings. trict courts. Accordingly, the same suit [**2853] brought originally in state court is not removable either. n24 B [***LEdHR28B] [28B] [***LEdHR31] [31] [***LEdHR32] [32]CLVT also argues that appellant's "causes of action" are, in n22 Indeed, as appellant's strategy in this case [***439] substance, federal claims. Although we have shows, they may often be willing to go to great often repeated that [HN24] "the party who brings a suit is lengths to avoid federal--court resolution of a pre-- master to decide what law he will rely upon," The Fair v. emption question. Realistically, there is little Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25 (1913), it is prospect that States will flood the federal courts an independent corollary of the well--pleaded complaint with declaratory judgment actions; most questions rule that a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to will arise, as in this case, because a State has sought plead necessary federal questions in a complaint, see Avco a declaration in state court and the defendant has Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int'l Assn. of Machinists, removed the case to federal court. Accordingly, it 376 F.2d 337, 339--340 (CA6 1967), aff'd, 390 U.S. 557 is perhaps appropriate to note that considerations (1968). of comity make us reluctant to snatch cases which a State has brought from the courts of that State, CLVT's best argument stems from our decision in unless some clear rule demands it. Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735. In that case, the petitioner filed suit in state court alleging simply that it had a valid contract with the respondent, a union, under n23 Cf. nn. 19 and 20, supra. Alleged patent in- which the respondent had agreed to submit all grievances fringers, for example, have a clear interest in swift to binding arbitration and not to cause or sanction any resolution of the federal issue of patent validity ---- "work stoppages, strikes, or slowdowns." The petitioner they are liable for damages if it turns out they are further alleged that the respondent and its officials had infringing a patent, and they frequently have a deli- violated the agreement by [*23] participating in and cate network of contractual arrangements with third sanctioning work stoppages, and it sought temporary and parties that is dependent on their right to sell or li- permanent injunctions against further breaches. App., O. cense a product. Parties subject to conflicting state T. 1967, No. 445, pp. 2--9. It was clear that, had peti- and federal regulatory schemes also have a clear in- tioner invoked it, there would have been a federal cause terest in sorting out the scope of each government's of action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations authority, especially where they face a threat of lia- Act, 1947 (LMRA), 29 U. S. C. § 185, see Textile Workers bility if the application of federal law is not quickly v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957), and that, even in made clear. state court, any action to enforce an agreement within Page 506 463 U.S. 1, *23; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2853; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***439; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 the scope of § 301 would be controlled by federal law, removable to federal district court, even if an otherwise see Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103--104 adequate state cause of action were pleaded without ref- (1962). It was also clear, however, under the law in effect erence to federal law. n27 It does not follow, however, at the time, that independent limits on federal jurisdiction that either of appellant's [*25] claims in this case comes made it impossible for a federal court to grant the injunc- within the scope of one of ERISA's causes of action. tive relief petitioner sought. See Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195 (1962) (later overruled in Boys n26 The statute further states that [HN26] "the Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235 (1970)). district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this sub- [***LEdHR33] [33] [***LEdHR34] [34]The chapter brought by the Secretary or by a partici- Court of Appeals held, 376 F.2d, at 340, and we affirmed, pant, beneficiary, or fiduciary," except for actions 390 U.S., at 560, that the petitioner's action "arose un- by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits der" § 301, and thus could be removed to federal court, due, to enforce rights under the terms of a plan, or although the petitioner had undoubtedly pleaded an ade- to clarify rights to future benefits, over which state quate claim for relief under the state law of contracts and courts have concurrent jurisdiction. § 502(e)(1), had sought a remedy available only under state law. The 29 U. S. C. § 1132(e)(1). In addition, ERISA's leg- necessary ground of decision was that the pre--emptive islative history indicates that, in light of the Act's force of § 301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any virtually unique pre--emptionprovision, see § 514, state cause of action "for violation of contracts between 29 U. S. C. § 1144, "a body of Federal substantive an employer and a labor organization." n25 Any [**2854] law will be developed by the courts to deal with is- such suit is purely a creature of federal law, notwithstand- sues involving rights and obligations under private ing the fact that state law would provide a cause [***440] welfare and pension plans." 120 Cong. Rec. 29942 of action in the absence of § 301. Avco [*24] stands for (1974) (remarks of Sen. Javits). the proposition that [HN25] if a federal cause of action completely pre--empts a state cause of action any complaint that comes within the scope of the federal cause of [***LEdHR35B] [35B] action necessarily "arises under" federal law. n27 Indeed, precedent involving other statutes n25 To similar effect is Oneida Indian Nation granting exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 677 (1974), in suggests that, if such an action were not within the which we held that ---- unlike all other ejectment class of cases over which state and federal courts suits in which the plaintiff derives its claim from a have concurrent jurisdiction, the proper course for federal grant, e. g., Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74 a federal district court to take after removal would (1914) ----an ejectment suit based on Indian title is be to dismiss the case altogether, without reaching within the original "federal question" jurisdiction of the merits. See, e. g., General Investment Co. v. the district courts, because Indian title creates a fed- Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 287--288 eral possessory right to tribal lands, "wholly apart (1922); Koppers Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., from the application of state law principles which 337 F.2d499, 501--502(CA8 1964) (Blackmun, J.). normally and separately protect a valid right of possession." Cf. 414 U.S., at 682--683 (REHNQUIST, [***LEdHR36A] [36A]The phrasing of § 502(a) J., concurring). is instructive. Section 502(a) specifies which persons ---- participants, beneficiaries, fiduciaries, or the Secretary of [***LEdHR35A] [35A]CLVT argues by analogy Labor ----may bring actions for particular kinds of relief. that ERISA, like § 301, was meant to create a body It neither creates nor expressly denies any cause of ac- of federal common law, and that "any state court action in favor of state governments, to enforce tax levies tion which would require the interpretation or application or for any other purpose. It does not purport to reach of ERISA to a plan document 'arises under' the laws of every question relating to plans covered by ERISA. n28 the United States." Brief for Appellees 20--21. ERISA Furthermore, [***441] § 514(b)(2)(A) of ERISA, 29 contains provisions creating a series of express causes of U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), makes clear that Congress did action in favor of participants, beneficiaries, and fiducia- not intend to pre--emptentirely every state cause of action ries of ERISA--covered plans, as well as the Secretary of relating to such plans. With important, but express lim- Labor. § 502(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a). n26 It may be itations, it states that [HN27] "nothing in this [**2855] that, as with § 301 as interpreted in Avco, any state action subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any coming within the scope of § 502(a) of ERISA would be person from any law of any State which regulates insur- Page 507 463 U.S. 1, *25; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2855; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***441; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83 ance, banking, or securities." erty taxes on real estate it owned. CLVT's trust agreement authorizes its trustees to pay such taxes. [***LEdHR36B] [36B] Art. V, para. 5.21(k), App. 29. n28 In contrast, § 301(a) of the LMRA applies to all "[suits] for violation of contracts between [***LEdHR1D] [1D] [***LEdHR38] [38] an employer and a labor organization representing [***LEdHR39] [39] [***LEdHR40A] [40A] employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . [***LEdHR41A] [41A]Once again, appellant's declara- or between any such labor organizations." We have tory judgment cause of action presents a somewhat more not taken a restrictive view of who may sue under § difficult issue. The question on which a declaration is 301 for violations of such contracts, see, e. g., Smith sought ----that of the CLVT trustees' "power to honor the v. Evening News Assn., 371 U.S. 195 (1962); Lewis levies made upon them by the State of California," see v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U.S. 459 (1960); cf. supra, at 6 ---- is undoubtedly a matter of concern under Nedd v. United Mine Workers, 556 F.2d 190, 196-- ERISA. It involves the meaning and enforceability of pro- 198 (CA3 1977), or of what contracts are covered visions in CLVT's trust agreement forbidding the trustees by § 301, see Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., to assign or otherwise to alienate funds held in trust, see 369 U.S. 17 (1962). See also Black--Clawson Co. supra, at 4--5,and n. 3, and thus comes within the class of v. Machinists Lodge 335, 313 F.2d 179, 181--182 questions for which Congress intended that federal courts (CA2 1962) (suit by employer for declaratory judg- create federal common law. n30 Under § 502(a)(3)(B) ment as to contract obligations arises under § 301). of [*27] ERISA, a participant, [***442] beneficiary, But even under § 301 we have never intimated that or fiduciary of a plan covered by ERISA may bring a any action merely relating to a contract within the declaratory judgment action in federal court to determine coverage of § 301 arises exclusively under that sec- whether the plan's trustees may comply with a state levy tion. For instance, a state battery suit growing out on funds held in trust. n31 Nevertheless, CLVT's argu- of a violent strike would not arise under § 301 sim- ment that appellant's second cause of action arises under ply because the strike may have been a violation ERISA fails for the second reason given above. [HN28] of an employer--union contract. Cf. Automobile ERISA carefully enumerates the parties entitled to seek Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634, 640--642(1958). relief under § 502; it does not provide anyone other than participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries with an express cause of action for a declaratory judgment on the issues [***LEdHR1C] [1C] [***LEdHR37] [37]Against in this case. A suit for similar relief by some other party this background, it is clear that a suit by state tax author- does not "arise under" that provision. n32 ities under a statute like § 18818 does not "arise under" ERISA. Unlike the contract rights at issue in Avco, the n30 See supra, at 24, n. 26. Of course, in sug- State's right to enforce its tax levies is not of central con- gesting that the trustees' power to comply with a cern [*26] to the federal statute. For that reason, as in state tax levy is ----as a subset of the trustees' gen- Gully, see supra, at 11--12,on the face of a well--pleaded eral duties with respect to CLVT ---- a matter of complaint there are many reasons completely unrelated concern under ERISA, we express no opinion as to the provisions and purposes of ERISA why the State to whether ERISA forbids the trustees to comply may or may not be entitled to the relief it seeks. n29 with the levies in this case or otherwise pre--empts Furthermore, ERISA does not provide an alternative cause the State's power to levy on funds held in trust. of action in favor of the State to enforce its rights, while § The same is true of our holding that ERISA does 301 expressly supplied the plaintiff in Avco with a federal not pre--empt the State's causes of action entirely. cause of action to replace its pre--empted state contract Merely to hold that ERISA does not have the same claim. Therefore, even though the Court of Appeals may effect on appellant's suit in this case that § 301 of well be correct that ERISA precludes enforcement of the the LMRA had on the petitioner's contract suit in State's levy in the circumstances of this case, an action to Avco is not to prejudge the merits of CLVT's pre-- enforce the levy is not itself pre--emptedby ERISA. emption claim. n29 In theory (looking only at the complaint), it may turn out that the levy was improper under n31 See n. 19, supra. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of state law, or that in fact the defendant had complied ERISA has been interpreted as creating a cause of with the levy. Cf. Gully v. First National Bank in action for a declaratory judgment. See Cutaiar v. Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 117 (1936). Furthermore, Marshall, 590 F.2d 523, 527 (CA3 1979). We re- a levy on CLVT might be for something like prop- Page 508 463 U.S. 1, *27; 103 S. Ct. 2841, **2855; 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, ***442; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 83

peat, however, the caveat expressed in n. 21, supra, Go to Supreme Court Briefs as to the effect of the Tax Injunction Act. Go to Oral Argument Transcript [***LEdHR40B] [40B] [***LEdHR41B] 32A Am Jur 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure 1607 [41B] et seq.; 32B Am Jur 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure n32 CLVT also argues that this case is directly 2418 et seq. controlled by Avco, on the theory that CLVT's trust agreement is a contract covered by § 301 of the 1 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Access to District Courts LMRA itself. Brief for Appellees 19, n. 19. We re- 1:385 et seq.; Federal Procedure, L Ed, Removal of ject this argument essentially for the reasons given Actions 69:13--69:15 in n. 28, supra. In this case, the State does not rely on any contract within the scope of § 301. The 1 Federal Procedural Forms, L Ed, Actions in District connection between appellant's causes of action to Court 1:11 et seq.; 14 Federal Procedural Forms, L Ed, enforce its levy and for a declaration of rights and Removal of Actions 58:21, 58:24, 58:115 duties and a suit to enforce the trust agreement is too attenuated for us to say that either "arises under" 11 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Federal Practice and § 301. Procedure, Forms 43, 152

3 Am Jur Trials 553, Selecting the Forum----Plaintiff's [**2856] IV Position; 3 Am Jur Trials 611, Selecting the Forum---- [***LEdHR1E] [1E] Our concern in this case is Defendant's Position consistent application of a system of statutes conferring original federal--court jurisdiction, as they have been in- 28 USCS 1331, 1441; 29 USCS 1001 et seq. terpreted by this Court over many years. Under our in- terpretations, Congress has given the lower federal courts US L Ed Digest, Courts 278.5; Removal of Causes 78 jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well--pleadedcomplaint L Ed Index to Annos, Courts; Jurisdiction; Removal or establishes either that federal law creates [*28] the cause Transfer of Causes of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal ALR Quick Index, Federal Courts; Jurisdiction; Removal law. We hold that [HN29] a suit by state tax authorities of Cause both to enforce its levies against funds held in trust pursuant to an ERISA--covered employee beneﬁt plan, and to Federal Quick Index, Courts; Federal Questions; declare the validity of the levies notwithstanding ERISA, Jurisdiction; Removal and Transfer of Cause is neither a creature of ERISA itself nor a suit of which the federal courts will take jurisdiction because it turns Annotation References: on a question of federal law. Accordingly, we vacate the Construction and application of 28 USCS 1254(2) au- judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand so that this thorizing appeal to Supreme Court from Court of Appeals case may be remanded to the Superior Court of the State judgment invalidating state statute. 27 L Ed 2d 840. of California for the County of Los Angeles. Constitutionality and construction of 301(a) of Labor It is so ordered. Management Relations Act (29 USCS 185(a)) conferring jurisdiction on Federal District Courts in actions for viola- REFERENCES: Return To Full Text Opinion tion of contract between employer and labor organization . 99 L Ed 529; 7 L Ed 2d 959; 16 L Ed 2d 1143. 118V7K

********** Print Completed **********

Time of Request: Monday, July 31, 2006 15:43:41 EST

Print Number: 1842:111129776 Number of Lines: 26514 Number of Pages: 508

Send To: LAWRENCE, 118V7K LAWRENCE LAW LIBRARY 2 APPLETON ST LAWRENCE, MA 01840-1573