context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "416 U.S. 1, 9",
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "176 F.3d 630, 645",
"parenthetical": "holding in context of local environmental review process that \"[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "416 U.S. 1, 9",
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "490 U.S. 332, 357",
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "416 U.S. 1, 9",
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "416 U.S. 1, 9",
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "189 F.3d 1355, 1362",
"parenthetical": "aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "416 U.S. 1, 9",
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "176 F.3d 630, 645",
"parenthetical": "holding in context of local environmental review process that \"[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "490 U.S. 332, 357",
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "189 F.3d 1355, 1362",
"parenthetical": "aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "176 F.3d 630, 645",
"parenthetical": "holding in context of local environmental review process that \"[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "490 U.S. 332, 357",
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "189 F.3d 1355, 1362",
"parenthetical": "aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "it is \"permissible\" for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "166 F.3d 490, 495",
"parenthetical": "\"[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "176 F.3d 630, 645",
"parenthetical": "holding in context of local environmental review process that \"[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "166 F.3d 490, 495",
"parenthetical": "\"[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "490 U.S. 332, 357",
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "166 F.3d 490, 495",
"parenthetical": "\"[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to \"minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "166 F.3d 490, 495",
"parenthetical": "\"[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | b |
Thus, the Supreme Court held in Penn Central Transportation Company that landmark-preservation laws, based partly on aesthetics, are valid. Other land-use restrictions, such as local zoning laws, also may properly take aesthetics into account. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "166 F.3d 490, 495",
"parenthetical": "\"[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions\"",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "189 F.3d 1355, 1362",
"parenthetical": "aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits",
"sentence": "See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (it is “permissible” for zoning laws to promote aesthetic considerations); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1999) (“[i]n New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”); see also Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 645 (2d Cir.1999) (holding in context of local environmental review process that “[ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of ... regulation and concern”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 357, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (discussing United States Forest Service regulations requiring special use permit authorization process to “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat”); Good v. United States, 189 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999) (aesthetics one of the factors considered by the Army Corps of Engineers in issuing dredging or wetlands filling permits)."
} | 11,109,800 | a |
Of course, like Iowa Code section 39.3(8) (2013) today, this statute is not a constitutional test. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "231 N.W.2d 882, 890",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that while we give \"respectful consideration to the legislature's understanding of constitutional language,\" we are the final arbiter of the meaning of the Iowa Constitution",
"sentence": "See Snyder, 958 N.E.2d at 780 (concluding an 1843 Indiana statute enumerating nine infamous crimes was not a present-day constitutional test); see also Green v. City of Cascade, 231 N.W.2d 882, 890 (Iowa 1975) (recognizing that while we give “respectful consideration to the legislature’s understanding of constitutional language,” we are the final arbiter of the meaning of the Iowa Constitution)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "958 N.E.2d 780, 780",
"parenthetical": "concluding an 1843 Indiana statute enumerating nine infamous crimes was not a present-day constitutional test",
"sentence": "See Snyder, 958 N.E.2d at 780 (concluding an 1843 Indiana statute enumerating nine infamous crimes was not a present-day constitutional test); see also Green v. City of Cascade, 231 N.W.2d 882, 890 (Iowa 1975) (recognizing that while we give “respectful consideration to the legislature’s understanding of constitutional language,” we are the final arbiter of the meaning of the Iowa Constitution)."
} | 6,970,864 | b |
Determination of the value of legal services rendered falls particularly within the discretion of the trial court. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court",
"sentence": "Succession of Butler, 294 So.2d 512 (La.1974); Oppenheim v. Bouterie, 505 So.2d 100 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987); Simon v. Metoyer, 383 So.2d 1321 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ refused 389 So.2d 1338 (La.1980); Fiasconaro & Fiasconaro v. Orlando, 342 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977); Lynch v. Burglass, 286 So.2d 170 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973) (all reviewing awards of attorney’s fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case); cf. Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La. 299, 69 So.2d 51 (La.1953); Massey v. Consumer’s Ice Co. of Shreveport, Inc., 223 La. 731, 66 So.2d 789 (La.1953); Succession of Richards, 49 La. Ann. 1115, 22 So. 317 (La.1897) (all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "all reviewing awards of attorney's fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case",
"sentence": "Succession of Butler, 294 So.2d 512 (La.1974); Oppenheim v. Bouterie, 505 So.2d 100 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987); Simon v. Metoyer, 383 So.2d 1321 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ refused 389 So.2d 1338 (La.1980); Fiasconaro & Fiasconaro v. Orlando, 342 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977); Lynch v. Burglass, 286 So.2d 170 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973) (all reviewing awards of attorney’s fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case); cf. Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La. 299, 69 So.2d 51 (La.1953); Massey v. Consumer’s Ice Co. of Shreveport, Inc., 223 La. 731, 66 So.2d 789 (La.1953); Succession of Richards, 49 La. Ann. 1115, 22 So. 317 (La.1897) (all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court)."
} | 7,526,288 | b |
Determination of the value of legal services rendered falls particularly within the discretion of the trial court. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "all reviewing awards of attorney's fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case",
"sentence": "Succession of Butler, 294 So.2d 512 (La.1974); Oppenheim v. Bouterie, 505 So.2d 100 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987); Simon v. Metoyer, 383 So.2d 1321 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ refused 389 So.2d 1338 (La.1980); Fiasconaro & Fiasconaro v. Orlando, 342 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977); Lynch v. Burglass, 286 So.2d 170 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973) (all reviewing awards of attorney’s fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case); cf. Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La. 299, 69 So.2d 51 (La.1953); Massey v. Consumer’s Ice Co. of Shreveport, Inc., 223 La. 731, 66 So.2d 789 (La.1953); Succession of Richards, 49 La. Ann. 1115, 22 So. 317 (La.1897) (all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court",
"sentence": "Succession of Butler, 294 So.2d 512 (La.1974); Oppenheim v. Bouterie, 505 So.2d 100 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987); Simon v. Metoyer, 383 So.2d 1321 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ refused 389 So.2d 1338 (La.1980); Fiasconaro & Fiasconaro v. Orlando, 342 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977); Lynch v. Burglass, 286 So.2d 170 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973) (all reviewing awards of attorney’s fees under the quantum meruit standard, which normally applies when an attorney has been discharged by a client prior to conclusion of a case); cf. Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La. 299, 69 So.2d 51 (La.1953); Massey v. Consumer’s Ice Co. of Shreveport, Inc., 223 La. 731, 66 So.2d 789 (La.1953); Succession of Richards, 49 La. Ann. 1115, 22 So. 317 (La.1897) (all affording the trial court great discretion in determining the value of legal services, where the services were rendered in a case tried before that particular trial court)."
} | 7,526,288 | a |
We note that the issue of a named plaintiffs ability to maintain actions in a representative capacity in collective actions brought under the FLSA, as compared to Rule 23 class actions, is in a state of flux. The Supreme Court has recently reinforced its view that these procedural mechanisms are essentially different. We need not decide whether it may, however, because we believe that the unique fact pattern here--namely, Appellants' voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice--has not only extinguished Appellants' individual claims, but also any residual representational interest that they may have once had. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "584 F.3d 701, 706",
"parenthetical": "\"Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.\"",
"sentence": "Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.2013) (holding that a Rule 23 named plaintiffs acceptance of a settlement offer as to his individual claims mooted his interest in the denial of class certification); Rhodes v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir.2011) (“[W]hen a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class certification, ... there is no longer a self-interested party ... necessary to satisfy Article III standing.”); cf. Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 701, 706 (6th Cir.2009) (“Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.”). This is so because it would be anomalous to conclude that Appellants are “similarly situated” to opt-in plaintiffs who, unlike Appellants, have actually retained their individual claims."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "705 F.3d 839, 844",
"parenthetical": "holding that a Rule 23 named plaintiffs acceptance of a settlement offer as to his individual claims mooted his interest in the denial of class certification",
"sentence": "Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.2013) (holding that a Rule 23 named plaintiffs acceptance of a settlement offer as to his individual claims mooted his interest in the denial of class certification); Rhodes v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir.2011) (“[W]hen a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class certification, ... there is no longer a self-interested party ... necessary to satisfy Article III standing.”); cf. Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 701, 706 (6th Cir.2009) (“Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.”). This is so because it would be anomalous to conclude that Appellants are “similarly situated” to opt-in plaintiffs who, unlike Appellants, have actually retained their individual claims."
} | 3,699,927 | b |
We note that the issue of a named plaintiffs ability to maintain actions in a representative capacity in collective actions brought under the FLSA, as compared to Rule 23 class actions, is in a state of flux. The Supreme Court has recently reinforced its view that these procedural mechanisms are essentially different. We need not decide whether it may, however, because we believe that the unique fact pattern here--namely, Appellants' voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice--has not only extinguished Appellants' individual claims, but also any residual representational interest that they may have once had. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "584 F.3d 701, 706",
"parenthetical": "\"Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.\"",
"sentence": "Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.2013) (holding that a Rule 23 named plaintiffs acceptance of a settlement offer as to his individual claims mooted his interest in the denial of class certification); Rhodes v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir.2011) (“[W]hen a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class certification, ... there is no longer a self-interested party ... necessary to satisfy Article III standing.”); cf. Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 701, 706 (6th Cir.2009) (“Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.”). This is so because it would be anomalous to conclude that Appellants are “similarly situated” to opt-in plaintiffs who, unlike Appellants, have actually retained their individual claims."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "636 F.3d 88, 100",
"parenthetical": "\"[W]hen a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class certification, ... there is no longer a self-interested party ... necessary to satisfy Article III standing.\"",
"sentence": "Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.2013) (holding that a Rule 23 named plaintiffs acceptance of a settlement offer as to his individual claims mooted his interest in the denial of class certification); Rhodes v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir.2011) (“[W]hen a putative class plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the individual claims underlying a request for class certification, ... there is no longer a self-interested party ... necessary to satisfy Article III standing.”); cf. Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 701, 706 (6th Cir.2009) (“Since the plaintiffs no longer have an interest in shifting ... costs to the putative class members [following settlement of their claims], the court cannot avoid the conclusion that this case is moot.”). This is so because it would be anomalous to conclude that Appellants are “similarly situated” to opt-in plaintiffs who, unlike Appellants, have actually retained their individual claims."
} | 3,699,927 | b |
Addressing federal parole violations, the former Fifth Circuit rejected the double jeopardy argument, similar to the one pressed here, that when parole is revoked upon violation, the time spent on parole should count towards time served on a prisoner's sentence. The former Fifth Circuit explained that in federal parole, the "time spent on parole shall not diminish the sentence where a prisoner has violated his parole and is required to serve the remainder of his sentence." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "371 F.3d 1301, 1303",
"parenthetical": "concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked",
"sentence": "Clark, 374 F.2d at 953; see also Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked); cf. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.2004) (concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked). Moreover, our predecessor court has rejected the argument that it violates due process principles to require a parole violator to serve the remaining time on his sentence, even if that causes the prisoner’s “incarceration [to extend] past the final expiration of the maximum sentence as established at the time of imposition.” Sturgis v. United States, 419 F.2d 390, 390 (5th Cir.1969); see also Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 755 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that parole violation results in forfeiture of good time credit and credit for time spent on parole)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "263 F.3d 423, 426",
"parenthetical": "holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked",
"sentence": "Clark, 374 F.2d at 953; see also Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked); cf. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.2004) (concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked). Moreover, our predecessor court has rejected the argument that it violates due process principles to require a parole violator to serve the remaining time on his sentence, even if that causes the prisoner’s “incarceration [to extend] past the final expiration of the maximum sentence as established at the time of imposition.” Sturgis v. United States, 419 F.2d 390, 390 (5th Cir.1969); see also Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 755 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that parole violation results in forfeiture of good time credit and credit for time spent on parole)."
} | 3,546,741 | b |
Addressing federal parole violations, the former Fifth Circuit rejected the double jeopardy argument, similar to the one pressed here, that when parole is revoked upon violation, the time spent on parole should count towards time served on a prisoner's sentence. The former Fifth Circuit explained that in federal parole, the "time spent on parole shall not diminish the sentence where a prisoner has violated his parole and is required to serve the remainder of his sentence." | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "419 F.2d 390, 390",
"parenthetical": "concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked",
"sentence": "Clark, 374 F.2d at 953; see also Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked); cf. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.2004) (concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked). Moreover, our predecessor court has rejected the argument that it violates due process principles to require a parole violator to serve the remaining time on his sentence, even if that causes the prisoner’s “incarceration [to extend] past the final expiration of the maximum sentence as established at the time of imposition.” Sturgis v. United States, 419 F.2d 390, 390 (5th Cir.1969); see also Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 755 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that parole violation results in forfeiture of good time credit and credit for time spent on parole)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "263 F.3d 423, 426",
"parenthetical": "holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked",
"sentence": "Clark, 374 F.2d at 953; see also Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that Due Process Clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked); cf. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.2004) (concluding that a state prisoner is in custody pursuant to his original state conviction and sentence upon reincarceration after his parole is revoked). Moreover, our predecessor court has rejected the argument that it violates due process principles to require a parole violator to serve the remaining time on his sentence, even if that causes the prisoner’s “incarceration [to extend] past the final expiration of the maximum sentence as established at the time of imposition.” Sturgis v. United States, 419 F.2d 390, 390 (5th Cir.1969); see also Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 755 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that parole violation results in forfeiture of good time credit and credit for time spent on parole)."
} | 3,546,741 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "960 F.2d 336, 344",
"parenthetical": "alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer's bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. SS 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 F.2d 540, 542",
"parenthetical": "legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | a |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "960 F.2d 336, 344",
"parenthetical": "alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer's bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. SS 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "30 F.3d 333, 333",
"parenthetical": "\"... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government\"",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | a |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 F.2d 540, 542",
"parenthetical": "legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511",
"parenthetical": "claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a \"purchaser\" and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "30 F.3d 333, 333",
"parenthetical": "\"... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government\"",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511",
"parenthetical": "claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a \"purchaser\" and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 F.2d 540, 542",
"parenthetical": "legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "claimant transferee of taxpayer's interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a \"purchaser\" and gave \"adequate and full consideration\" to gain priority over government claimant's federal tax lien",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "claimant transferee of taxpayer's interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a \"purchaser\" and gave \"adequate and full consideration\" to gain priority over government claimant's federal tax lien",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "30 F.3d 333, 333",
"parenthetical": "\"... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government\"",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | a |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 F.2d 540, 542",
"parenthetical": "legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "claimant transferee of taxpayer's interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a \"purchaser\" and gave \"adequate and full consideration\" to gain priority over government claimant's federal tax lien",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "30 F.3d 333, 333",
"parenthetical": "\"... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government\"",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "claimant transferee of taxpayer's interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a \"purchaser\" and gave \"adequate and full consideration\" to gain priority over government claimant's federal tax lien",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | b |
The government argues that the defendants have the burden of proof by virtue of the statutory framework of section 6323(a). The government has a lien on the Property by virtue of its tax assessment against Nancy. 26 U.S.C. SS 6321. This lien, however, is not valid against a "purchaser" until notice is filed. 26 U.S.C. SS 6323(a). It has been held that a third party seeking to invalidate a federal tax lien in an interpleader action bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the protection of section 6323 as to her interest in a tax debtor's property. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "109 F.2d 540, 542",
"parenthetical": "legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "30 F.3d 333, 333",
"parenthetical": "\"... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government\"",
"sentence": "Resolution Trust Corporation v. Gill, 960 F.2d 336, 344 (3d Cir.1992) (alleged holder in due course of cheeks drawn on taxpayer’s bank accounts had burden of proving that she was a purchaser and came within the shelter provision making a federal tax lien invalid as against her interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6323[b][l][A] in an interpleader action); Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. United States, 466 F.2d 1040, 1054 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1367, 35 L.Ed.2d 591 (1973); Rodeck v. United States, 697 F.Supp. 1508, 1511 (D.Minn.1988) (claimant in interpleader action bore the burden of proving that she was a “purchaser” and entitled to protection of section 6323[a]); STV Engineers, Inc. v. Ash, 1986 WL 3862, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-1137, 86-1141, 86-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9352 (E.D.Pa.1986) (claimant transferee of taxpayer’s interest in annuity had burden to prove in interpleader action that he was a “purchaser” and gave “adequate and full consideration” to gain priority over government claimant’s federal tax lien); aff'd, 806 F.2d 251,254 (3d Cirl986); see also, MacKenzie v. United States, 109 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1940) (legislative history of section 6323, as interpreted through a predecessor statute, reveals that burden of proof is on party seeking protection of the statute); but see, United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 333 (“... to deprive a person of protection under section 6323[a], a federal statute, the burden and risk of persuading the fact finder that Robert had actual knowledge of a fraudulent conveyance rested with the government”)."
} | 3,464,933 | a |
Specifically, Anderson, Vollmer, Foster and Hornstein testified that they always rely on a borrower's balance sheet when they consider a new line of credit. Horizon asserts that this routine practice establishes that they relied on Debtor's balance sheet when they considered approving his loan. Although' the Court overruled objections to the admissibility of this evidence, this testimony does not definitively establish actual reliance. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Once routine practice evidence has been admitted, Rule 406 does not limit the district court's consideration of such evidence, or the weight that it may be given\"",
"sentence": "See Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 1405144, at *4 (N.D.Ga. May 15, 2009) (“Ultimately, habit evidence is to be “weighed and considered by the trier of fact in the same manner as any other type of direct or circumstantial evidence.’ ”) (quoting Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519, 1523 (11th Cir.1985); see also U.S. v. Davis, 261 F.3d 1, 33 n. 24 (1st Cir.2001) (“Once routine practice evidence has been admitted, Rule 406 does not limit the district court’s consideration of such evidence, or the weight that it may be given”). To the contrary, the Court finds their testimony, without more, lacks credibility and is unpersuasive."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2009 WL 1405144, at *4",
"parenthetical": "\"Ultimately, habit evidence is to be \"weighed and considered by the trier of fact in the same manner as any other type of direct or circumstantial evidence.' \"",
"sentence": "See Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 1405144, at *4 (N.D.Ga. May 15, 2009) (“Ultimately, habit evidence is to be “weighed and considered by the trier of fact in the same manner as any other type of direct or circumstantial evidence.’ ”) (quoting Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519, 1523 (11th Cir.1985); see also U.S. v. Davis, 261 F.3d 1, 33 n. 24 (1st Cir.2001) (“Once routine practice evidence has been admitted, Rule 406 does not limit the district court’s consideration of such evidence, or the weight that it may be given”). To the contrary, the Court finds their testimony, without more, lacks credibility and is unpersuasive."
} | 4,261,294 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "195 Va. 85, 88",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "160 Va. 660, 667",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "77 S.E.2d 420, 422",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "160 Va. 660, 667",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "160 Va. 660, 667",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "161 Va. 127, 136",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "160 Va. 660, 667",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "170 S.E. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "160 Va. 660, 667",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Va. 518, 521",
"parenthetical": "\"until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "169 S.E. 579, 582",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "195 Va. 85, 88",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "77 S.E.2d 420, 422",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "169 S.E. 579, 582",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "161 Va. 127, 136",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "169 S.E. 579, 582",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "170 S.E. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "169 S.E. 579, 582",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "169 S.E. 579, 582",
"parenthetical": "once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Va. 518, 521",
"parenthetical": "\"until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a \"duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "195 Va. 85, 88",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a \"duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "77 S.E.2d 420, 422",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a \"duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "161 Va. 127, 136",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a \"duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "170 S.E. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Va. 518, 521",
"parenthetical": "\"until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a \"duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "223 Va. 62, 62",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "195 Va. 85, 88",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "77 S.E.2d 420, 422",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "223 Va. 62, 62",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "161 Va. 127, 136",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "223 Va. 62, 62",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "223 Va. 62, 62",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "170 S.E. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Va. 518, 521",
"parenthetical": "\"until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "223 Va. 62, 62",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "195 Va. 85, 88",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "286 S.E.2d 161, 161",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "77 S.E.2d 420, 422",
"parenthetical": "\"If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "286 S.E.2d 161, 161",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "161 Va. 127, 136",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "286 S.E.2d 161, 161",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | b |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "286 S.E.2d 161, 161",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "170 S.E. 625, 628",
"parenthetical": "debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
Once defendant received actual notice of the assignment, it was under a duty to pay the assignee/hospital to the extent of the rights assigned. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "286 S.E.2d 161, 161",
"parenthetical": "effect of actual notice of an assignment \"is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Va. 518, 521",
"parenthetical": "\"until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor\"",
"sentence": "Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d 161; Southern Residence Corp. v. City Supply Co., 160 Va. 660, 667, 169 S.E. 579, 582 (1933) (once notice is received, obligor does not have the right to pay assignor in disregard of assignment); 2A Michie’s Jurisprudence, Assignments, § 26, at 336, citing Tazewell v. Barrett, 14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 259 (1809) (the receipt of actual notice of the assignment creates a “duty of the debtor to pay the assignee of the sum assigned”); Id., citing Lataif, 223 Va. at 62, 286 S.E.2d at 161 (effect of actual notice of an assignment “is to bind the obligor to pay the assignee, after notice, instead of paying the original obligee”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. Joyner, 195 Va. 85, 88, 77 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1953) (“If the obligor has received no notice and does not know that his debt has been assigned, he may, with impunity, pay his original creditor and extinguish the obligation____”); County School Board of Carroll County v. First Nat. Bank, 161 Va. 127, 136, 170 S.E. 625, 628 (1933) (debtor is liable to assignee if it pays assignor after receiving notice); Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518, 521 (1886) (“until notice, the assignment is subject to all the equities of the debtor against the assignor”)."
} | 3,866,313 | a |
P 28 Unlike the situation in Sanders, Freeney has never suggested that the amendment affected, let alone prejudiced, his litigation strategy, trial preparation, examination of witnesses, or argument; nor did he request a trial continuance or recess. Further, his "all or nothing" defense, based on his assertion that someone other than he was the perpetrator, did not change as a result of the amended charge. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment's timing \"seriously undercut [defendant's] opportunity to attack the victim's inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | 4,050,747 | a |
P 28 Unlike the situation in Sanders, Freeney has never suggested that the amendment affected, let alone prejudiced, his litigation strategy, trial preparation, examination of witnesses, or argument; nor did he request a trial continuance or recess. Further, his "all or nothing" defense, based on his assertion that someone other than he was the perpetrator, did not change as a result of the amended charge. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "8 P.3d 1162, 1162-63",
"parenthetical": "although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment's timing \"seriously undercut [defendant's] opportunity to attack the victim's inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | 4,050,747 | a |
P 28 Unlike the situation in Sanders, Freeney has never suggested that the amendment affected, let alone prejudiced, his litigation strategy, trial preparation, examination of witnesses, or argument; nor did he request a trial continuance or recess. Further, his "all or nothing" defense, based on his assertion that someone other than he was the perpetrator, did not change as a result of the amended charge. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment's timing \"seriously undercut [defendant's] opportunity to attack the victim's inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "124 P.3d 756, 760",
"parenthetical": "no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | 4,050,747 | b |
P 28 Unlike the situation in Sanders, Freeney has never suggested that the amendment affected, let alone prejudiced, his litigation strategy, trial preparation, examination of witnesses, or argument; nor did he request a trial continuance or recess. Further, his "all or nothing" defense, based on his assertion that someone other than he was the perpetrator, did not change as a result of the amended charge. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "124 P.3d 756, 760",
"parenthetical": "no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "8 P.3d 1162, 1162-63",
"parenthetical": "although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment's timing \"seriously undercut [defendant's] opportunity to attack the victim's inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533 ¶ 7, 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (no showing defense was prejudiced by allegedly duplicitous indictment when defendant claimed he had not committed charged acts); cf. Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248-49 ¶ 12, 8 P.3d at 1162-63 (although defendant denied having engaged in any sexual acts with victim, court found he was prejudiced by amendment of information after state rested its ease because the amendment’s timing “seriously undercut [defendant’s] opportunity to attack the victim’s inconsistent statements ... and inhibited his right to defend himself against her accusations”)."
} | 4,050,747 | a |
Further, Plaintiffs activities do not support the ALJ's rejection of her subjective complaints or the ALJ's conclusion that she is able to sustain gainful employment, as none of Plaintiffs activities translate into an ability to do activities that are transferable to a work setting. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "914 F.2d 1197, 1201",
"parenthetical": "ALJ errs in failing to make a finding to the effect that ability to perform daily activities translated into the ability to perform appropriate work",
"sentence": "See Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.1990) (ALJ errs in failing to make a finding to the effect that ability to perform daily activities translated into the ability to perform appropriate work); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2001) (“This court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall disability.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "260 F.3d 1044, 1050",
"parenthetical": "\"This court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall disability.\"",
"sentence": "See Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.1990) (ALJ errs in failing to make a finding to the effect that ability to perform daily activities translated into the ability to perform appropriate work); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2001) (“This court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall disability.”)."
} | 4,239,812 | a |
Viewing the progress of this case in context, I find that lack of due diligence in considering their jurisdictional premises and undue delay on the part of the Plaintiffs provide sufficient reason to deny their motion for reconsideration. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "465 F.3d 31, 31",
"parenthetical": "holding that a district court \"had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint\" fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint",
"sentence": "See Palmer, 465 F.3d at 31 (holding that a district court “had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint” fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint); cf. Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 92-93 (1st Cir.2008)(noting the potential for uncertainty and “unwholesome strategic behavior arising from the temptation to manufacture diversity” and finding “no policy-based reason for elongating the reach of the time of filing rule and applying it to a case in which a plaintiff forsakes a claimed entitlement to diversity jurisdiction in favor of a claimed entitlement to federal question jurisdiction”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "522 F.3d 82, 92-93",
"parenthetical": "noting the potential for uncertainty and \"unwholesome strategic behavior arising from the temptation to manufacture diversity\" and finding \"no policy-based reason for elongating the reach of the time of filing rule and applying it to a case in which a plaintiff forsakes a claimed entitlement to diversity jurisdiction in favor of a claimed entitlement to federal question jurisdiction\"",
"sentence": "See Palmer, 465 F.3d at 31 (holding that a district court “had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint” fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint); cf. Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 92-93 (1st Cir.2008)(noting the potential for uncertainty and “unwholesome strategic behavior arising from the temptation to manufacture diversity” and finding “no policy-based reason for elongating the reach of the time of filing rule and applying it to a case in which a plaintiff forsakes a claimed entitlement to diversity jurisdiction in favor of a claimed entitlement to federal question jurisdiction”)."
} | 3,553,660 | a |
Similarly, and with perhaps even closer parallels to the instant scenario, several courts have responded to claims of sovereign immunity from subpoenas asserted by third-party Indian tribes by recognizing judicial "discretion not to apply the [immunity] doctrine" -- which is "largely" a matter of "comity" -- if "it would conflict with more important federal interests, such as the constitutional rights of criminal defendants." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19",
"parenthetical": "denying motion to quash criminal defendant's subpoena because, court could not permit \"tribe's immunity from civil actions\" to \"interfere] with the defendant's right to compulsory process\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "675 F.3d 1100, 1105",
"parenthetical": "considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the \"question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,\" where no \"competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | 12,273,860 | b |
Similarly, and with perhaps even closer parallels to the instant scenario, several courts have responded to claims of sovereign immunity from subpoenas asserted by third-party Indian tribes by recognizing judicial "discretion not to apply the [immunity] doctrine" -- which is "largely" a matter of "comity" -- if "it would conflict with more important federal interests, such as the constitutional rights of criminal defendants." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "675 F.3d 1100, 1105",
"parenthetical": "considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the \"question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,\" where no \"competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17",
"parenthetical": "\"I also conclude that the Court's interest in protecting Defendant's constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | 12,273,860 | a |
Similarly, and with perhaps even closer parallels to the instant scenario, several courts have responded to claims of sovereign immunity from subpoenas asserted by third-party Indian tribes by recognizing judicial "discretion not to apply the [immunity] doctrine" -- which is "largely" a matter of "comity" -- if "it would conflict with more important federal interests, such as the constitutional rights of criminal defendants." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "675 F.3d 1100, 1105",
"parenthetical": "considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the \"question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,\" where no \"competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"I also conclude that the Court's interest in protecting Defendant's constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | 12,273,860 | a |
Similarly, and with perhaps even closer parallels to the instant scenario, several courts have responded to claims of sovereign immunity from subpoenas asserted by third-party Indian tribes by recognizing judicial "discretion not to apply the [immunity] doctrine" -- which is "largely" a matter of "comity" -- if "it would conflict with more important federal interests, such as the constitutional rights of criminal defendants." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58",
"parenthetical": "concluding that criminal defendant's \"constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe's] claim of immunity\" from defendant's subpoena",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "675 F.3d 1100, 1105",
"parenthetical": "considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the \"question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,\" where no \"competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery\"",
"sentence": "Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena)."
} | 12,273,860 | b |
We conclude that Funtanilla adequately alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Funtanilla alleged that while he was in the suicide prevention cell, "defendant Rubles observed him once during the night cutting his arm." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "828 F.2d 556, 561",
"parenthetical": "indicating at dismissal all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff",
"sentence": "See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir.1987) (indicating at dismissal all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "70 F.3d 1074, 1077",
"parenthetical": "indicating circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to show prison official's knowledge of risk",
"sentence": "(Complaint at 2, ¶ 10). See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1995) (indicating circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to show prison official’s knowledge of risk). Funtanilla also alleged that Rubles left the hospital “after 3 A.M.,” and that he was not removed from the suicide prevention cell until 5 A.M., covered in his own blood."
} | 157,944 | b |
This declaration, analogizing UNC to a municipal corporation, tends to support the conclusion that UNC is comparable to a municipality and therefore not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "436 U.S. 690, 690",
"parenthetical": "concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom SS 1983 applies",
"sentence": "See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 (concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies); see also Simon, 946 P.2d at 1305 (recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "946 P.2d 1305, 1305",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity",
"sentence": "See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 (concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies); see also Simon, 946 P.2d at 1305 (recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity)."
} | 11,824,532 | a |
This declaration, analogizing UNC to a municipal corporation, tends to support the conclusion that UNC is comparable to a municipality and therefore not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "98 S.Ct. 2035, 2035",
"parenthetical": "concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom SS 1983 applies",
"sentence": "See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 (concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies); see also Simon, 946 P.2d at 1305 (recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "946 P.2d 1305, 1305",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity",
"sentence": "See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 (concluding that Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies); see also Simon, 946 P.2d at 1305 (recognizing that the Supreme Court in Mount Healthy and Lake Country concluded that the entities were not arms of the State because the enabling statutes failed to articulate a clear intention to cloak the entities with Eleventh Amendment immunity)."
} | 11,824,532 | a |
Disparate treatment cannot automatically be imputed in every situation where one of the State's reasons for striking a venire person would technically apply to another venire person whom the State found acceptable. For example, where the only evidence of discriminatory intent is that the party striking the venire person made an honest mistake in recalling what the venire person said, pretext is not shown. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "892 F.Supp. 245, 248-49",
"parenthetical": "mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext",
"sentence": "See Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 892 F.Supp. 245, 248-49 (D.Kan. 1995), aff'd, 109 F.3d 1540, 1546-48 (10th Cir.1997) (mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext); see also Salinas v. State, 888 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, pet. ref'd) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken in some of these beliefs, the judge could still conclude that the strike was race-neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”); Jack v. State, 867 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "867 S.W.2d 942, 947",
"parenthetical": "\"Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.\"",
"sentence": "See Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 892 F.Supp. 245, 248-49 (D.Kan. 1995), aff'd, 109 F.3d 1540, 1546-48 (10th Cir.1997) (mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext); see also Salinas v. State, 888 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, pet. ref'd) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken in some of these beliefs, the judge could still conclude that the strike was race-neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”); Jack v. State, 867 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”)."
} | 11,869,313 | a |
Disparate treatment cannot automatically be imputed in every situation where one of the State's reasons for striking a venire person would technically apply to another venire person whom the State found acceptable. For example, where the only evidence of discriminatory intent is that the party striking the venire person made an honest mistake in recalling what the venire person said, pretext is not shown. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "867 S.W.2d 942, 947",
"parenthetical": "\"Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.\"",
"sentence": "See Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 892 F.Supp. 245, 248-49 (D.Kan. 1995), aff'd, 109 F.3d 1540, 1546-48 (10th Cir.1997) (mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext); see also Salinas v. State, 888 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, pet. ref'd) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken in some of these beliefs, the judge could still conclude that the strike was race-neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”); Jack v. State, 867 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "109 F.3d 1540, 1546-48",
"parenthetical": "mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext",
"sentence": "See Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 892 F.Supp. 245, 248-49 (D.Kan. 1995), aff'd, 109 F.3d 1540, 1546-48 (10th Cir.1997) (mere mistaken belief is insufficient to prove discriminatory intent and pretext); see also Salinas v. State, 888 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, pet. ref'd) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken in some of these beliefs, the judge could still conclude that the strike was race-neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”); Jack v. State, 867 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (“Even if the prosecutor was mistaken, the trial judge could still conclude that the strike was race neutral because the prosecutor based his peremptory strike on an honest belief.”)."
} | 11,869,313 | b |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | b |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | a |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | a |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | b |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | a |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | a |
In summary, we cannot conclude that the FCMA on its face pre-empts all state extraterritorial regulation. Other courts which have considered this issue, at least when no federal regulations had been promulgated for the specific species of fish, have agreed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented",
"sentence": "See Anderson Seafoods, Inc. v. Graham, 529 F.Supp. 512 (N.D.Fla.1982) (upholding state statute prohibiting use of purse seine within or without the waters of the state as applied to fisherman with vessel registered in state operating beyond state territorial boundary); People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980) (upholding state assertion of penal jurisdiction in situation wherein defendant used state licensed vessel to take swordfish in FCZ in violation of state regulations and no federal regulatory plan for swordfish had been implemented); cf. State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 (R.I.1982) (FCMA pre-empts state regulation of commercial fishing for a particular species of fish where federal regulations governing such fishing have been promulgated)."
} | 10,429,227 | b |
The "capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate (that is, a reasonable) expectation of privacy in the invaded place." Thus, unless the appellant can demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched, his mere possessory interest in the searched government quarters will not establish a Fourth Amendment violation. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "5 M.J. 46, 46-47",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | 3,536,558 | b |
The "capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate (that is, a reasonable) expectation of privacy in the invaded place." Thus, unless the appellant can demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched, his mere possessory interest in the searched government quarters will not establish a Fourth Amendment violation. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "5 M.J. 46, 46-47",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | 3,536,558 | a |
The "capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate (that is, a reasonable) expectation of privacy in the invaded place." Thus, unless the appellant can demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched, his mere possessory interest in the searched government quarters will not establish a Fourth Amendment violation. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "5 M.J. 46, 46-47",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "13 M.J. 75, 77",
"parenthetical": "person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched",
"sentence": "See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92, 100 S.Ct. at 2552-2553; United States v. Quinn, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986) (per curiam decision dismissing writ of certiorari as improvidently granted); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105-106, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Miller, 13 M.J. 75, 77 (C.M.A.1982) (person seeking to suppress search evidence bears burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in area being searched); cf. United States v. Harris, 5 M.J. at 46-47 (recognizing that actual standing by virtue of a reasonable expectation of privacy may be established, in certain circumstances, by a proprietory interest in premises seized)."
} | 3,536,558 | b |
Having concluded that plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid hourly contract for the services it actually performed, as opposed to the estimated services contract between the parties, the Court considers whether plaintiff is entitled to be reasonably compensated for services rendered on the vessel under the theory of quantum meruit. See R.B. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "112 F.3d 54, 60",
"parenthetical": "quantum meruit claims are \"non-contractual, equitable remedies that are inapplicable if there is an enforceable contract governing the subject matter.\"",
"sentence": "Ventures, Ltd. v. Simon R. Shane, 112 F.3d 54, 60 (2d Cir.1997) (quantum meruit claims are “non-contractual, equitable remedies that are inapplicable if there is an enforceable contract governing the subject matter.”); see also Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830, 835 (2d Cir.1977) (“[T]he law is clear that quasi-contractual claims may be considered by the federal courts in admiralty if they arise out of maritime contracts, or other inherently maritime transactions”) (citations and footnote omitted); GMD Shipyard Corp. v. M/V ANTHEA Y, No. 03 Civ. 2748, 2004 WL 2251670, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2004)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "553 F.2d 830, 835",
"parenthetical": "\"[T]he law is clear that quasi-contractual claims may be considered by the federal courts in admiralty if they arise out of maritime contracts, or other inherently maritime transactions\"",
"sentence": "Ventures, Ltd. v. Simon R. Shane, 112 F.3d 54, 60 (2d Cir.1997) (quantum meruit claims are “non-contractual, equitable remedies that are inapplicable if there is an enforceable contract governing the subject matter.”); see also Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830, 835 (2d Cir.1977) (“[T]he law is clear that quasi-contractual claims may be considered by the federal courts in admiralty if they arise out of maritime contracts, or other inherently maritime transactions”) (citations and footnote omitted); GMD Shipyard Corp. v. M/V ANTHEA Y, No. 03 Civ. 2748, 2004 WL 2251670, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2004)."
} | 2,584,305 | a |
A witness may have multiple motivations for testifying to particular facts, and "[a]dmission of evidence of one type of bias does not render exclusion of evidence of another type of bias harmless." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "272 Or App 737, 746-47",
"parenthetical": "evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him",
"sentence": "State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "269 Or App 327, 333-34",
"parenthetical": "exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant",
"sentence": "State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state)."
} | 12,414,412 | b |
A witness may have multiple motivations for testifying to particular facts, and "[a]dmission of evidence of one type of bias does not render exclusion of evidence of another type of bias harmless." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "272 Or App 460, 470",
"parenthetical": "admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant--viz., because she was angry with him--did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so--viz., to curry favor with the state",
"sentence": "State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "269 Or App 327, 333-34",
"parenthetical": "exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant",
"sentence": "State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state)."
} | 12,414,412 | b |
Furthermore, Bolton is being sued in his official capacity, not as an individual, to enjoin him from acting as directed by a Dallas City ordinance. In actions against public officials in their official capacities, the doctrine of qualified immunity plays no part, prohibiting neither the grant of injunctive relief, nor the award of attorney's fees. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "868 F.2d 165, 168",
"parenthetical": "holding that attorney's fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "436 U.S. 658, 700",
"parenthetical": "\"Indeed, municipalities simply cannot 'arrange their affairs' on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under SS 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.\"",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | 9,449,001 | a |
Furthermore, Bolton is being sued in his official capacity, not as an individual, to enjoin him from acting as directed by a Dallas City ordinance. In actions against public officials in their official capacities, the doctrine of qualified immunity plays no part, prohibiting neither the grant of injunctive relief, nor the award of attorney's fees. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "868 F.2d 165, 168",
"parenthetical": "holding that attorney's fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Indeed, municipalities simply cannot 'arrange their affairs' on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under SS 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.\"",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | 9,449,001 | a |
Furthermore, Bolton is being sued in his official capacity, not as an individual, to enjoin him from acting as directed by a Dallas City ordinance. In actions against public officials in their official capacities, the doctrine of qualified immunity plays no part, prohibiting neither the grant of injunctive relief, nor the award of attorney's fees. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "868 F.2d 165, 168",
"parenthetical": "holding that attorney's fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Indeed, municipalities simply cannot 'arrange their affairs' on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under SS 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.\"",
"sentence": "See Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that attorney’s fees may be awarded against a public official even when the official is immune from money damages); see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Indeed, municipalities simply cannot ‘arrange their affairs’ on an assumption that they can violate constitutional rights indefinitely since injunctive suits against local officials under § 1983 would prohibit any such arrangement.”)"
} | 9,449,001 | a |
P 25 Based on this record, the trial court did not err in determining that Hatch was not an active participant in causing the water flow issue and that his only liability was a result of his status as owner of the property rather than as an actively negligent party. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "17 Ariz.App. 428, 434",
"parenthetical": "describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Ariz. 197, 197-98",
"parenthetical": "holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | 12,178,939 | b |
P 25 Based on this record, the trial court did not err in determining that Hatch was not an active participant in causing the water flow issue and that his only liability was a result of his status as owner of the property rather than as an actively negligent party. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "82 Ariz. 197, 197-98",
"parenthetical": "holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | 12,178,939 | a |
P 25 Based on this record, the trial court did not err in determining that Hatch was not an active participant in causing the water flow issue and that his only liability was a result of his status as owner of the property rather than as an actively negligent party. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "310 P.2d 822, 822-23",
"parenthetical": "holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "17 Ariz.App. 428, 434",
"parenthetical": "describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | 12,178,939 | a |
P 25 Based on this record, the trial court did not err in determining that Hatch was not an active participant in causing the water flow issue and that his only liability was a result of his status as owner of the property rather than as an actively negligent party. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "310 P.2d 822, 822-23",
"parenthetical": "holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity",
"sentence": "See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274, 723 P.2d at 92; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252, 722 P.2d at 979; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98, 310 P.2d at 822-23 (holding that the indemnity plaintiffs liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); cf. Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 434, 498 P.2d 502 (1972) (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to indemnity)."
} | 12,178,939 | a |
Rose failed to raise certain claims of sentencing error on direct appeal, which are now procedurally defaulted. To show cause to overcome that default, Rose must demonstrate that "some objective factor external to the defense prevented [him] or his counsel from raising his claims on direct appeal and that this factor cannot be fairly attributable to [his] own conduct." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "657 F.3d 1196, 1196",
"parenthetical": "\"Under the procedural default rule, a defendant generally must advance an available challenge to a criminal conviction or sentence on direct appeal or else the defendant is barred from presenting that claim in a SS 2255 proceeding.\" (emphasis added",
"sentence": "See McKay, 657 F.3d at 1196 (“Under the procedural default rule, a defendant generally must advance an available challenge to a criminal conviction or sentence on direct appeal or else the defendant is barred from presenting that claim in a § 2255 proceeding.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); see also Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1235 (holding that to show cause to overcome procedural default, a defendant must demonstrate that something prevented him “from raising his claims on direct appeal....” (emphasis added))."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "365 F.3d 1235, 1235",
"parenthetical": "holding that to show cause to overcome procedural default, a defendant must demonstrate that something prevented him \"from raising his claims on direct appeal....\" (emphasis added",
"sentence": "See McKay, 657 F.3d at 1196 (“Under the procedural default rule, a defendant generally must advance an available challenge to a criminal conviction or sentence on direct appeal or else the defendant is barred from presenting that claim in a § 2255 proceeding.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); see also Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1235 (holding that to show cause to overcome procedural default, a defendant must demonstrate that something prevented him “from raising his claims on direct appeal....” (emphasis added))."
} | 4,339,449 | a |
(Defs.' Reply 19.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the governing case law supports the conclusion that RLUIPA, because of its jurisdictional provision and as has already been determined by the Second Circuit, constitutes a proper constitutional exercise of Congress' power and does not run afoul of any constitutional provisions. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "560 F.3d 316, 328, n. 34",
"parenthetical": "\"Every circuit to consider whether RLUIPA is Spending Clause legislation has concluded that it is constitutional under at least that power.\"",
"sentence": "See Sossamon, 131 S.Ct. at 1664 (“Though the Court reserves the general question whether RLUIPA is a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause, there is apparently no disagreement among the Federal Courts of Appeals.”); see also Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 328, n. 34 (5th Cir.2009) (“Every circuit to consider whether RLUIPA is Spending Clause legislation has concluded that it is constitutional under at least that power.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "131 S.Ct. 1664, 1664",
"parenthetical": "\"Though the Court reserves the general question whether RLUIPA is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Spending Clause, there is apparently no disagreement among the Federal Courts of Appeals.\"",
"sentence": "See Sossamon, 131 S.Ct. at 1664 (“Though the Court reserves the general question whether RLUIPA is a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause, there is apparently no disagreement among the Federal Courts of Appeals.”); see also Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 328, n. 34 (5th Cir.2009) (“Every circuit to consider whether RLUIPA is Spending Clause legislation has concluded that it is constitutional under at least that power.”)."
} | 4,194,334 | b |
. While the majority contends that its decision today affects only Swanner's conduct, not his religious beliefs, Opinion at 283, I do not believe that the Alaska Constitution distinguishes so clearly between religious belief and religious conduct. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "604 P.2d 1070, 1070",
"parenthetical": "because of the close relationship between conduct and belief, and because of the high value we assign to religious beliefs, religiously impelled actions can be forbidden only where they are outweighed by a compelling governmental interest",
"sentence": "See Frank, 604 P.2d at 1070 (because of the close relationship between conduct and belief, and because of the high value we assign to religious beliefs, religiously impelled actions can be forbidden only where they are outweighed by a compelling governmental interest)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "406 U.S. 205, 220",
"parenthetical": "\"[Bjelief and action cannot be neatly confined in logic-tight compartments.\"",
"sentence": "See also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 220, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1535-36, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (\"[Bjelief and action cannot be neatly confined in logic-tight compartments.”); Smith, 494 U.S. at 893, 110 S.Ct. at 1608 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Because the First Amendment does not distinguish between religious belief and religious conduct, conduct motivated by sincere religious belief, like the belief itself, must therefore be at least presumptively protected by the Free Exercise Clause.”)."
} | 10,350,130 | a |
Subsets and Splits