context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Under Pickering and its progeny, unless the employee's comments are actually disruptive, single out a specific person as a target, or materially interfere with the performance of an employee's duties, the right to unhampered expression on matters of public salience will prevail. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "619 F.2d 606, 609",
"parenthetical": "absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | 4,187,631 | a |
Under Pickering and its progeny, unless the employee's comments are actually disruptive, single out a specific person as a target, or materially interfere with the performance of an employee's duties, the right to unhampered expression on matters of public salience will prevail. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "605 F.2d 1058, 1063",
"parenthetical": "improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "616 F.2d 1165, 1166",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff's secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | 4,187,631 | a |
Under Pickering and its progeny, unless the employee's comments are actually disruptive, single out a specific person as a target, or materially interfere with the performance of an employee's duties, the right to unhampered expression on matters of public salience will prevail. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "605 F.2d 1058, 1063",
"parenthetical": "improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination",
"sentence": "See, e. g., Van Coteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff improperly dismissed for addressing public body on subject of civil rights for homosexuals); Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education, 619 F.2d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 1980) (absent direct public criticism of superiors, personality conflict generated by protected union activities cannot justify discharge); Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F.2d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1979) (improper to silence employee who reveals misappropriation of public funds, despite resulting disharmony); cf. Serna v. Manzano, 616 F.2d 1165,1166 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff’s secret tape recording of office conversations caused actual disruption); Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979) (fireman properly dismissed for verbally attacking very persons with whom he functions in closest coordination)."
} | 4,187,631 | a |
The court cannot "compel or punish the failure to produce things that do not exist...." Bracey v. Harlow, Civ.A. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2014 WL 2604706, at *4",
"parenthetical": "\"Given the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the evidence ever existed, ... it could not be suppressed or withheld.\"",
"sentence": "No. 111666, 2014 WL 2604706, at *4 (M.D.Pa. June 10, 2014) (“Given the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the evidence ever existed, ... it could not be suppressed or withheld.”); cf. Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir.2007) (“[A] party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, [evidence] that it does not possess or cannot obtain.”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "490 F.3d 130, 138",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, [evidence] that it does not possess or cannot obtain.\"",
"sentence": "No. 111666, 2014 WL 2604706, at *4 (M.D.Pa. June 10, 2014) (“Given the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the evidence ever existed, ... it could not be suppressed or withheld.”); cf. Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir.2007) (“[A] party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, [evidence] that it does not possess or cannot obtain.”)."
} | 4,262,058 | a |
Finally, as to the fifth Chateaugay II factor, the appellants did avail themselves of their opportunity to seek a stay of the Settlement Order, both before the Bankruptcy Court and before this Court. But the appellants' diligence alone is insufficient to avoid equitable mootness in light of the unavailability of effective relief and the other considerations discussed above. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "20 F.3d 766, 769-70",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization.\"",
"sentence": "See In re UNR Indus., 20 F.3d 766, 769-70 (7th Cir.1994) (“[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization.”); cf. In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89 (2d Cir.1997) (appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89",
"parenthetical": "appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay",
"sentence": "See In re UNR Indus., 20 F.3d 766, 769-70 (7th Cir.1994) (“[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization.”); cf. In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89 (2d Cir.1997) (appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay)."
} | 3,647,986 | a |
This statute prohibits certain drug transactions within 1,000 feet of a structure "used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school for student instruction or attendance or extracurricular activities of pupils enrolled in kindergarten or any of the grades one through 12." At trial, there was evidence that Garfield School was a public school attended by kindergartners through third graders, but Ward argues there was no evidence that the school was used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936",
"parenthetical": "to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | 4,278,268 | b |
This statute prohibits certain drug transactions within 1,000 feet of a structure "used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school for student instruction or attendance or extracurricular activities of pupils enrolled in kindergarten or any of the grades one through 12." At trial, there was evidence that Garfield School was a public school attended by kindergartners through third graders, but Ward argues there was no evidence that the school was used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | 4,278,268 | a |
This statute prohibits certain drug transactions within 1,000 feet of a structure "used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school for student instruction or attendance or extracurricular activities of pupils enrolled in kindergarten or any of the grades one through 12." At trial, there was evidence that Garfield School was a public school attended by kindergartners through third graders, but Ward argues there was no evidence that the school was used by a unified school district or an accredited nonpublic school. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school",
"sentence": "See State v. Star, 27 Kan. App. 2d 930, 936, 10 P.3d 37, rev. denied 270 Kan. 903 (2000) (to sustain conviction for sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, State must present evidence that structure referred to as a school complies with the definition in 65-4161[d]); see also State v. West, Nos. 99, 063, 99, 067, 2008 WL 4849472 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 289 Kan. 1285 (2009) (reversing three convictions for insufficient evidence of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school because State failed to prove that the building within 1,000 feet of the three sale transactions was part of unified school district or accredited nonpublic school)."
} | 4,278,268 | a |
Exclusion H does not exclude coverage based on ordinary employee negligence. It excludes coverage only if an employee acts with knowledge of or intent to further a forgery, or intentionally disregards relevant bank policies. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "27 F.3d 335, 335",
"parenthetical": "holding loss was \"caused\" by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation",
"sentence": "See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 (holding loss was “caused” by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation); cf. Citibank Tex., N.A. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3751301, at *6 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 21, 2006) (refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence “of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy”), rev’d on other grounds, 522 F.3d 591 (5th Cir.2008)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "2006 WL 3751301, at *6",
"parenthetical": "refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence \"of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy\"",
"sentence": "See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 (holding loss was “caused” by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation); cf. Citibank Tex., N.A. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3751301, at *6 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 21, 2006) (refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence “of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy”), rev’d on other grounds, 522 F.3d 591 (5th Cir.2008)."
} | 4,025,768 | a |
Exclusion H does not exclude coverage based on ordinary employee negligence. It excludes coverage only if an employee acts with knowledge of or intent to further a forgery, or intentionally disregards relevant bank policies. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence \"of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy\"",
"sentence": "See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 (holding loss was “caused” by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation); cf. Citibank Tex., N.A. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3751301, at *6 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 21, 2006) (refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence “of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy”), rev’d on other grounds, 522 F.3d 591 (5th Cir.2008)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "27 F.3d 335, 335",
"parenthetical": "holding loss was \"caused\" by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation",
"sentence": "See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 (holding loss was “caused” by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation); cf. Citibank Tex., N.A. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3751301, at *6 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 21, 2006) (refusing to apply Exclusion H where there was no evidence “of employee collusion or of intentional disregard of bank policy”), rev’d on other grounds, 522 F.3d 591 (5th Cir.2008)."
} | 4,025,768 | b |
In deciding whether to impose the "extraordinary remedy" of an injunction, the court is required to consider whether a plaintiff has an adequate remedy or would suffer irreparable harm. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29",
"parenthetical": "stating that court first must consider \"whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.\"",
"sentence": "See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44",
"parenthetical": "holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction",
"sentence": "See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction)."
} | 2,933,965 | a |
In deciding whether to impose the "extraordinary remedy" of an injunction, the court is required to consider whether a plaintiff has an adequate remedy or would suffer irreparable harm. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "3 F.3d 431, 431",
"parenthetical": "determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no \"meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]\"",
"sentence": "See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44",
"parenthetical": "holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction",
"sentence": "See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction)."
} | 2,933,965 | a |
As an initial matter, the court finds that Commerce reasonably determined that the plain language of the Order's exclusion was subject to interpretation and was therefore justified in employing the (k)(1) and (k)(2) factors. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"The relevant scope terms are 'unambiguous' if they have a 'single clearly defined or stated meaning.' \" (quoting Unambiguous, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (3d ed. 1986",
"sentence": "See Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1097 (“[A] predicate for the interpretive process is language in the order that is subject to interpretation.”); see also Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1381 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The relevant scope terms are ‘unambiguous’ if they have a ‘single clearly defined or stated meaning.’ ” (quoting Unambiguous, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (3d ed. 1986)), Here; there is nothing to suggest that the term “mechanical tubing” has a .single definition, and so Commerce’s finding that it was ambiguous was in accordance with law."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "296 F.3d 1097, 1097",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] predicate for the interpretive process is language in the order that is subject to interpretation.\"",
"sentence": "See Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1097 (“[A] predicate for the interpretive process is language in the order that is subject to interpretation.”); see also Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1381 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The relevant scope terms are ‘unambiguous’ if they have a ‘single clearly defined or stated meaning.’ ” (quoting Unambiguous, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (3d ed. 1986)), Here; there is nothing to suggest that the term “mechanical tubing” has a .single definition, and so Commerce’s finding that it was ambiguous was in accordance with law."
} | 12,273,893 | b |
The verified motion plainly sets forth trial counsel's statements regarding his minimal efforts to investigate the cause of death, appellate counsel's ease in locating and securing controverting expert testimony, and Dr. Clarke's proposed testimony. Because Rodriguez's verified motion for new trial raises a particular matter that cannot be determined by the record and upon which relief may be granted, we hold Rodriguez's verified motion for new trial meets Reyes' requirements. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5",
"parenthetical": "holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it \"lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Alcott v. State, 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. granted) (holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it “lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "30 S.W.3d 692, 700",
"parenthetical": "\"The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.\"",
"sentence": "See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.”) (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (TexApp.—El Paso 1995, pet. refd) (“The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.”) (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1983))."
} | 11,433,238 | b |
Thus, liability under section 3730(h) cannot be extended on the basis of a conspiracy; the hallmark of liability under section 3730(h) is an "employment relationship" and for this, the Court must search. See, e.g., Clemes v. Del Norte Cty. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that plaintiff could not name individuals as defendants in section 3730(h",
"sentence": "United School Dist., 1996 WL 331096, *7 n. 6 (N.D.Cal.1996) (finding that plaintiff could not name individuals as defendants in section 3730(h) action because school district, not school officials, were employers); Shapiro v. Sutherland, 835 F.Supp. 836, 837-38 (E.D.Pa.1993) (question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was employee under common law agency test); Hardin v. DuPont Scandinavia (ARA-JET), 731 F.Supp. 1202, 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (independent contractor failed to state claim under 3730(h)); see also United States ex rel. Lamar v. Burke, 894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48 (E.D.Mo.1995) (applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that “employer” as used in section 3730(h) does not extend to corporate supervisors or president of defendant). This approach is faithful to both the language of the statute, the general proposition that remedial statutes be liberally construed, and Congress’ intent that the “definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ ... be all inclusive.”"
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48",
"parenthetical": "applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that \"employer\" as used in section 3730(h",
"sentence": "United School Dist., 1996 WL 331096, *7 n. 6 (N.D.Cal.1996) (finding that plaintiff could not name individuals as defendants in section 3730(h) action because school district, not school officials, were employers); Shapiro v. Sutherland, 835 F.Supp. 836, 837-38 (E.D.Pa.1993) (question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was employee under common law agency test); Hardin v. DuPont Scandinavia (ARA-JET), 731 F.Supp. 1202, 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (independent contractor failed to state claim under 3730(h)); see also United States ex rel. Lamar v. Burke, 894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48 (E.D.Mo.1995) (applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that “employer” as used in section 3730(h) does not extend to corporate supervisors or president of defendant). This approach is faithful to both the language of the statute, the general proposition that remedial statutes be liberally construed, and Congress’ intent that the “definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ ... be all inclusive.”"
} | 243,044 | a |
Thus, liability under section 3730(h) cannot be extended on the basis of a conspiracy; the hallmark of liability under section 3730(h) is an "employment relationship" and for this, the Court must search. See, e.g., Clemes v. Del Norte Cty. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "835 F.Supp. 836, 837-38",
"parenthetical": "question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was employee under common law agency test",
"sentence": "United School Dist., 1996 WL 331096, *7 n. 6 (N.D.Cal.1996) (finding that plaintiff could not name individuals as defendants in section 3730(h) action because school district, not school officials, were employers); Shapiro v. Sutherland, 835 F.Supp. 836, 837-38 (E.D.Pa.1993) (question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was employee under common law agency test); Hardin v. DuPont Scandinavia (ARA-JET), 731 F.Supp. 1202, 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (independent contractor failed to state claim under 3730(h)); see also United States ex rel. Lamar v. Burke, 894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48 (E.D.Mo.1995) (applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that “employer” as used in section 3730(h) does not extend to corporate supervisors or president of defendant). This approach is faithful to both the language of the statute, the general proposition that remedial statutes be liberally construed, and Congress’ intent that the “definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ ... be all inclusive.”"
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48",
"parenthetical": "applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that \"employer\" as used in section 3730(h",
"sentence": "United School Dist., 1996 WL 331096, *7 n. 6 (N.D.Cal.1996) (finding that plaintiff could not name individuals as defendants in section 3730(h) action because school district, not school officials, were employers); Shapiro v. Sutherland, 835 F.Supp. 836, 837-38 (E.D.Pa.1993) (question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was employee under common law agency test); Hardin v. DuPont Scandinavia (ARA-JET), 731 F.Supp. 1202, 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (independent contractor failed to state claim under 3730(h)); see also United States ex rel. Lamar v. Burke, 894 F.Supp. 1345, 1347-48 (E.D.Mo.1995) (applying Title VII definition of employer and finding that “employer” as used in section 3730(h) does not extend to corporate supervisors or president of defendant). This approach is faithful to both the language of the statute, the general proposition that remedial statutes be liberally construed, and Congress’ intent that the “definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ ... be all inclusive.”"
} | 243,044 | a |
Athough the case law does not discuss the issue of whether a license to provide health care services is "property" within the context of this rule of statutory interpretation, in the analogous area of due process, courts have uniformly held that the holder of a license has a property right protected by the appropriate Federal Due Process Clause. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "291 Md. 390, 405",
"parenthetical": "right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "47 F.3d 120, 122-23",
"parenthetical": "stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | 42,456 | a |
Athough the case law does not discuss the issue of whether a license to provide health care services is "property" within the context of this rule of statutory interpretation, in the analogous area of due process, courts have uniformly held that the holder of a license has a property right protected by the appropriate Federal Due Process Clause. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "291 Md. 390, 405",
"parenthetical": "right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | 42,456 | a |
Athough the case law does not discuss the issue of whether a license to provide health care services is "property" within the context of this rule of statutory interpretation, in the analogous area of due process, courts have uniformly held that the holder of a license has a property right protected by the appropriate Federal Due Process Clause. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "291 Md. 390, 405",
"parenthetical": "right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | 42,456 | a |
Athough the case law does not discuss the issue of whether a license to provide health care services is "property" within the context of this rule of statutory interpretation, in the analogous area of due process, courts have uniformly held that the holder of a license has a property right protected by the appropriate Federal Due Process Clause. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "291 Md. 390, 405",
"parenthetical": "right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license",
"sentence": "Scott v. Williams, 924 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir.1991) (stating driver’s license is property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment) (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)); Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 896 F.2d 408, 409-10 (9th Cir.1990) (stating professional license is protected property right) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957)); Commission on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 405, 435 A2d. 747 (1981) (right to practice medicine protected property right subject to paramount police power of state); cf. Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 122-23 (4th Cir.) (stating that laws calling for issuance of license do not create property right unless state has no discretion to grant or deny the license), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995). This principle of constitutional law is equally applicable in the context of statutory interpretation."
} | 42,456 | a |
However, before the doctrine may be applied in administrative proceedings, it must appear that the first agency to address the claim in question had jurisdiction to resolve that claim. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it",
"sentence": "See Peterkin v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1353 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1986) (doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested); see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Messina, 874 P.2d 1058 (Colo.1994) (doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested",
"sentence": "See Peterkin v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1353 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1986) (doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested); see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Messina, 874 P.2d 1058 (Colo.1994) (doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it)."
} | 10,366,652 | b |
However, before the doctrine may be applied in administrative proceedings, it must appear that the first agency to address the claim in question had jurisdiction to resolve that claim. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested",
"sentence": "See Peterkin v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1353 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1986) (doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested); see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Messina, 874 P.2d 1058 (Colo.1994) (doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it",
"sentence": "See Peterkin v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1353 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1986) (doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested); see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Messina, 874 P.2d 1058 (Colo.1994) (doctrine of collateral estop-pel does not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is unnecessary for determination of claim before it)."
} | 10,366,652 | a |
The district court properly dismissed Arline's action against defendants Vasquez, Clark, and Sherman because Arline failed to allege facts sufficient to link these defendants to any constitutional violation. See Arnold, v. Int'l Bus. Macks. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "637 F.2d 1350, 1355",
"parenthetical": "to bring a 42 U.S.C. SS 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights",
"sentence": "Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "627 F.3d 338, 341-42",
"parenthetical": "although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim",
"sentence": "Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim)."
} | 4,312,442 | a |
"A motion to remand that does not simply articulate the remedy sought on appeal will be held to the substantive standards applicable either to a motion to reconsider or to reopen." Id. Cancellation of removal requires, inter alia, a showing that the alien's "removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States." 8 U.S.C. SS 1229b(b)(l)(D). However, petitioners failed to provide any detailed evidence regarding their U.S. citizen son's medical condition or treatment. The BIA therefore did not err in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood that their application for cancellation of removal would succeed on the merits. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "485 U.S. 94, 104",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.\"",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | 3,962,902 | a |
"A motion to remand that does not simply articulate the remedy sought on appeal will be held to the substantive standards applicable either to a motion to reconsider or to reopen." Id. Cancellation of removal requires, inter alia, a showing that the alien's "removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States." 8 U.S.C. SS 1229b(b)(l)(D). However, petitioners failed to provide any detailed evidence regarding their U.S. citizen son's medical condition or treatment. The BIA therefore did not err in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood that their application for cancellation of removal would succeed on the merits. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.\"",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | 3,962,902 | a |
"A motion to remand that does not simply articulate the remedy sought on appeal will be held to the substantive standards applicable either to a motion to reconsider or to reopen." Id. Cancellation of removal requires, inter alia, a showing that the alien's "removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States." 8 U.S.C. SS 1229b(b)(l)(D). However, petitioners failed to provide any detailed evidence regarding their U.S. citizen son's medical condition or treatment. The BIA therefore did not err in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood that their application for cancellation of removal would succeed on the merits. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.\"",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen",
"sentence": "See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357 (BIA 1998) (“[W]here an alien is seeking previously unavailable relief and has not had an opportunity to present her application before the [IJ], the Board will look to whether the alien has proffered sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.”)."
} | 3,962,902 | b |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "887 F.Supp. 435, 449",
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "68 F.3d 579, 579",
"parenthetical": "noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | b |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "68 F.3d 579, 579",
"parenthetical": "noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | a |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "6 F.3d 45, 45",
"parenthetical": "three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "887 F.Supp. 435, 449",
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | a |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "6 F.3d 45, 45",
"parenthetical": "three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | a |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "887 F.Supp. 435, 449",
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "971 F.2d 900, 900",
"parenthetical": "oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | b |
. For example, we do not expect that these limited hearings will resemble the sometimes prolonged pretrial hearings that district courts in this Circuit have conducted to address probable cause for the government's seizure of property under federal forfeiture laws. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "971 F.2d 900, 900",
"parenthetical": "oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Names Registry Publ’g, 68 F.3d at 579 (noting that the district court below had held a two-day pretrial hearing to examine probable cause for an ex -parte seizure of bank funds under federal forfeiture law); Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 45 (three-day pretrial evidentiary hearing to examine probable cause for seizure of electronic transfer funds under federal forfeiture law); Statewide Auto Parts, 971 F.2d at 900 (oral argument followed by further written evidentiary submis sions on the issue of probable cause to seize real and personal commercial properties under federal forfeiture law); see also In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ’g, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 435, 449 (E.D.N.Y.) (\"[I]f a claimant challenges the validity of a seizure, ... then the merits of the forfeiture trial are expedited and the government must establish probable cause for the forfeiture prior to the forfeiture trial.”), vacated on other grounds, 68 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995)."
} | 11,437,531 | b |
Rather, the MSPB dismissed plaintiff's case on procedural grounds, because he had not re-filed his appeal within six months. This constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the MSPB. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "118 F.3d 404, 410",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "64 F.3d 1137, 1142",
"parenthetical": "no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | 11,092,722 | a |
Rather, the MSPB dismissed plaintiff's case on procedural grounds, because he had not re-filed his appeal within six months. This constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the MSPB. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "64 F.3d 1137, 1142",
"parenthetical": "no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "522 F.2d 1128, 1132",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | 11,092,722 | b |
Rather, the MSPB dismissed plaintiff's case on procedural grounds, because he had not re-filed his appeal within six months. This constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the MSPB. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "64 F.3d 1137, 1142",
"parenthetical": "no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | 11,092,722 | b |
Rather, the MSPB dismissed plaintiff's case on procedural grounds, because he had not re-filed his appeal within six months. This constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the MSPB. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "64 F.3d 1137, 1142",
"parenthetical": "no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Barnes v. Levitt, 118 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir.1997) (plaintiff cannot be dilatory at administrative level and then invoke jurisdiction of federal court); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1975) (plaintiff cannot take initial steps and then abandon administrative process); Morales v. Runyon, 844 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where agency dismissed EEO complaint for failure to provide affidavit); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (D.D.C.2000) (plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where EEOC dismissed claims for failure to respond to request for information); see also McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (no subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff abandoned Title VII claims before MSPB)."
} | 11,092,722 | a |
The Court also places little evidentiary value in the facts that John Hancock retains discretion to defend suits brought against it under the Plan, and that it is compensated based on total claims paid under the Plan. Neither fact reveals the type of discretion over the disposition of plan assets consistent with an ERISA fiduciary. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "57 F.3d 613, 613",
"parenthetical": "ruling that claims administrator not fiduciary where lacked authority to decide disputed and nonroutine claims",
"sentence": "See Useden v. Acker, 721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243 (S.D.Fla.1989) (observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets); see also Harris, 57 F.3d at 613 (ruling that claims administrator not fiduciary where lacked authority to decide disputed and nonroutine claims); Baxter, 941 F.2d at 456 (holding that claims processor that pays claims in accordance with terms of plan not ERISA fiduciary)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243",
"parenthetical": "observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets",
"sentence": "See Useden v. Acker, 721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243 (S.D.Fla.1989) (observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets); see also Harris, 57 F.3d at 613 (ruling that claims administrator not fiduciary where lacked authority to decide disputed and nonroutine claims); Baxter, 941 F.2d at 456 (holding that claims processor that pays claims in accordance with terms of plan not ERISA fiduciary)."
} | 7,782,865 | b |
The Court also places little evidentiary value in the facts that John Hancock retains discretion to defend suits brought against it under the Plan, and that it is compensated based on total claims paid under the Plan. Neither fact reveals the type of discretion over the disposition of plan assets consistent with an ERISA fiduciary. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243",
"parenthetical": "observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets",
"sentence": "See Useden v. Acker, 721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243 (S.D.Fla.1989) (observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets); see also Harris, 57 F.3d at 613 (ruling that claims administrator not fiduciary where lacked authority to decide disputed and nonroutine claims); Baxter, 941 F.2d at 456 (holding that claims processor that pays claims in accordance with terms of plan not ERISA fiduciary)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "941 F.2d 456, 456",
"parenthetical": "holding that claims processor that pays claims in accordance with terms of plan not ERISA fiduciary",
"sentence": "See Useden v. Acker, 721 F.Supp. 1233, 1243 (S.D.Fla.1989) (observing that cases in which service provider found to be fiduciary involved facts where service provider exercised broad control over plan assets); see also Harris, 57 F.3d at 613 (ruling that claims administrator not fiduciary where lacked authority to decide disputed and nonroutine claims); Baxter, 941 F.2d at 456 (holding that claims processor that pays claims in accordance with terms of plan not ERISA fiduciary)."
} | 7,782,865 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "360 U.S. 310, 312",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "384 U.S. 333, 356",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "381 U.S. 532, 543",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "111 Idaho 827, 831",
"parenthetical": "denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not \"incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period\" and the \"intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "727 P.2d 1255, 1259",
"parenthetical": "denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not \"incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period\" and the \"intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "91 Idaho 847, 848",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "360 U.S. 310, 312",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52",
"parenthetical": "jury's exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "384 U.S. 333, 356",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616",
"parenthetical": "atmosphere of a \"Roman holiday for the news media,\" a \"deluge of publicity,\" and \"massive pretrial publicity\" necessitated new trial",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "381 U.S. 532, 543",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550",
"parenthetical": "live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of \"judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "111 Idaho 827, 831",
"parenthetical": "denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not \"incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period\" and the \"intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | a |
This is also not a ease where Mr. Ellington has shown that bias to the impaneled jury might be presumed because of the extent of publicity during the trial. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "727 P.2d 1255, 1259",
"parenthetical": "denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not \"incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period\" and the \"intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 P.2d 117, 118",
"parenthetical": "mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality",
"sentence": "See State v. Scroggins, 91 Idaho 847, 848, 433 P.2d 117, 118 (1967) (mid-trial newspaper article stating other charges filed against the defendant which was discussed in the jury room did not present the degree of publicity necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality); see also Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 312, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1959) (jury’s exposure to newspaper article which was highly prejudicial to defendant necessitated new trial); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1519, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 616 (1966) (atmosphere of a “Roman holiday for the news media,” a “deluge of publicity,” and “massive pretrial publicity” necessitated new trial); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 550 (1965) (live radio and television broadcast of trial and pre-trial proceedings deprived defendant of “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled”); State v. Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 831, 727 P.2d 1255, 1259 (Ct.App.1986) (denial of motions for change of venue and sequestration not an abuse of discretion because prospective jurors were not “incessantly exposed to news stories throughout the pretrial period” and the “intensity of the initial coverage was dissipated by the passage of time”)."
} | 4,079,950 | b |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "358 F.3d 1058, 1064",
"parenthetical": "\"an employee's post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee's remedies for a wrongful discharge\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "636 F.Supp.2d 461, 461",
"parenthetical": "McKennon's holding \"that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages\" should be extended to post-termination conduct",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | a |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "358 F.3d 1058, 1064",
"parenthetical": "\"an employee's post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee's remedies for a wrongful discharge\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 961472, at *3",
"parenthetical": "noting that the post-temiination conduct \"directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | a |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "636 F.Supp.2d 461, 461",
"parenthetical": "McKennon's holding \"that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages\" should be extended to post-termination conduct",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "164 F.3d 545, 555",
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | b |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 961472, at *3",
"parenthetical": "noting that the post-temiination conduct \"directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "164 F.3d 545, 555",
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | b |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "636 F.Supp.2d 461, 461",
"parenthetical": "McKennon's holding \"that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages\" should be extended to post-termination conduct",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | a |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 961472, at *3",
"parenthetical": "noting that the post-temiination conduct \"directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | b |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "636 F.Supp.2d 461, 461",
"parenthetical": "McKennon's holding \"that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages\" should be extended to post-termination conduct",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | a |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 961472, at *3",
"parenthetical": "noting that the post-temiination conduct \"directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | b |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "636 F.Supp.2d 461, 461",
"parenthetical": "McKennon's holding \"that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages\" should be extended to post-termination conduct",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | a |
Although it appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit, several courts have addressed, and sharply divided on, whether McKennon's rule applies to post-termination wrongdoing. Two circuit courts have concluded that post-employment misconduct could be the basis for applying McKennon's after-acquired evidence defense. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2008 WL 961472, at *3",
"parenthetical": "noting that the post-temiination conduct \"directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "acknowledging \"the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct\" but affirming district court's refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose \"as a direct result of retaliatory termination\"",
"sentence": "See Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.2004) (“an employee’s post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, limit an employee’s remedies for a wrongful discharge”); Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 813, 120 S.Ct. 48, 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) (acknowledging “the possibility that in appropriate circumstances the logic of McKennon may permit certain limitations on relief based on post-termination conduct” but affirming district court’s refusal to give McKennon instruction where alleged misconduct arose “as a direct result of retaliatory termination”); see also McKenna, 636 F.Supp.2d at 461 (McKennon’s holding “that a plaintiffs pre-termination misconduct must be considered in evaluating equitable damages” should be extended to post-termination conduct); Cohen v. Gulfstream Training Acad., Inc., 2008 WL 961472 at *3 (S.D.Fla.2008) (unpublished) (noting that the post-temiination conduct “directly flows from the conduct that occurred pre-termination”)."
} | 3,435,116 | b |
A question is proper if it seeks to discover a juror's views on an issue applicable to the case. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "808 S.W.2d 482, 484-85",
"parenthetical": "holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question seeking to determine bias or prejudice in favor of the victim because she was a nun",
"sentence": "Maddux, 862 S.W.2d at 592 (holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow questions regarding victim’s status as a child); see also Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question seeking to determine bias or prejudice in favor of the victim because she was a nun)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "862 S.W.2d 592, 592",
"parenthetical": "holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow questions regarding victim's status as a child",
"sentence": "Maddux, 862 S.W.2d at 592 (holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow questions regarding victim’s status as a child); see also Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question seeking to determine bias or prejudice in favor of the victim because she was a nun)."
} | 11,666,047 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "978 F.2d 126, 131-33",
"parenthetical": "finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were \"records\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "978 F.2d 126, 131-33",
"parenthetical": "finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were \"records\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "978 F.2d 126, 131-33",
"parenthetical": "finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were \"records\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "978 F.2d 126, 131-33",
"parenthetical": "finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were \"records\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411",
"parenthetical": "finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act's disclosure provisions had been violated",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411",
"parenthetical": "finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act's disclosure provisions had been violated",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411",
"parenthetical": "finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act's disclosure provisions had been violated",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411",
"parenthetical": "finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act's disclosure provisions had been violated",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "709 F.2d 684, 686",
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "709 F.2d 684, 686",
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "709 F.2d 684, 686",
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "709 F.2d 684, 686",
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that supervisors' memorandum reflecting employee's failure to follow the chain of command was a \"record\" within the meaning of the Privacy Act",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "857 F.2d 1116, 1116-17",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "770 F.2d 355, 360",
"parenthetical": "assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | a |
In general, courts have been lenient in determining what information constitutes a "record" within the meaning of the Act. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "804 F.2d 428, 431",
"parenthetical": "finding that \"private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act\" but that' \"once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual's employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act\".",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486",
"parenthetical": "finding that information that \"an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee's disability retirement application is an item of 'information about an individual' which is covered by the Privacy Act\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 131-33 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that both the information on a hunting roster and on a time card were “records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act); Bartel v. Federal Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403, 1407-1411 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that letters sent by FAA official that indicated that plaintiff employee had improperly obtained access to files of FAA inspectors, although not themselves agency records, did not, as a matter of law, bar claim that Privacy Act’s disclosure provisions had been violated); Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684, 686 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that supervisors’ memorandum reflecting employee’s failure to follow the chain of command was a “record” within the meaning of the Privacy Act), cert. denied sub nom. Boyd v. Lehman, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 709, 79 L.Ed.2d 173 (1984); cf. Manuel, 857 F.2d at 1116-17 (assuming, without deciding, that two Veterans Administration Reports of Contact generated by undercover investigators were records); Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor, 770 F.2d 355, 360 (3d Cir.1985) (assuming, without deciding, that investigative files compiled as a result of plaintiffs complaints were records); Brooks v. Veterans Admin., 773 F.Supp. 1483, 1486 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that information that “an unidentified doctor supported or failed to support an employee’s disability retirement application is an item of ‘information about an individual’ which is covered by the Privacy Act”); but see Bowyer v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 804 F.2d 428, 431 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that “private notes are not subject to the requirements of the' Privacy Act” but that' “once the notes are used by the agency to make a decision concerning an individual’s employment status, the notes become subject to the provisions of the Act”.); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir.1989) (same)."
} | 7,636,804 | b |
He stated that when he brought the gun, he hoped to "[s]care [the group] to leave.... " We conclude that the record contains some evidence that appellant's purpose in threatening to use deadly force was "limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary." See id. Thus, because some evidence supports this defensive issue, we hold that appellant was entitled to a section 9.04 instruction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "955 S.W.2d 279, 279",
"parenthetical": "holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source",
"sentence": "See Brown, 955 S.W.2d at 279 (holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source); see also Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 658 (holding that defendant entitled to instruction on defensive theory regardless of whether evidence supporting theory is weak or contradicted, or when trial court believes supporting evidence is not credible); Bufkin, 207 S.W.3d at 782 (holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendant’s requested submission)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "243 S.W.3d 658, 658",
"parenthetical": "holding that defendant entitled to instruction on defensive theory regardless of whether evidence supporting theory is weak or contradicted, or when trial court believes supporting evidence is not credible",
"sentence": "See Brown, 955 S.W.2d at 279 (holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source); see also Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 658 (holding that defendant entitled to instruction on defensive theory regardless of whether evidence supporting theory is weak or contradicted, or when trial court believes supporting evidence is not credible); Bufkin, 207 S.W.3d at 782 (holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendant’s requested submission)."
} | 7,314,599 | a |
He stated that when he brought the gun, he hoped to "[s]care [the group] to leave.... " We conclude that the record contains some evidence that appellant's purpose in threatening to use deadly force was "limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary." See id. Thus, because some evidence supports this defensive issue, we hold that appellant was entitled to a section 9.04 instruction. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "207 S.W.3d 782, 782",
"parenthetical": "holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendant's requested submission",
"sentence": "See Brown, 955 S.W.2d at 279 (holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source); see also Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 658 (holding that defendant entitled to instruction on defensive theory regardless of whether evidence supporting theory is weak or contradicted, or when trial court believes supporting evidence is not credible); Bufkin, 207 S.W.3d at 782 (holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendant’s requested submission)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "955 S.W.2d 279, 279",
"parenthetical": "holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source",
"sentence": "See Brown, 955 S.W.2d at 279 (holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source); see also Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 658 (holding that defendant entitled to instruction on defensive theory regardless of whether evidence supporting theory is weak or contradicted, or when trial court believes supporting evidence is not credible); Bufkin, 207 S.W.3d at 782 (holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendant’s requested submission)."
} | 7,314,599 | b |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.