SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.

v.

DOLE, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (263 total)

• Liberty Commc'ns, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 733 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
  …alized as conferring a personal right on the parties to have that action, or those claims, adjudicated in a judicial forum. See e.g. Pacemaker Diag. Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F. 2d 537, 541 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984) (recognizing that the “federal litigant has a personal right, subject to exceptions in certain classes of cases, to demand Article III adjudication of a civil suit.”); accord, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530,…
• Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1986)
  …ply a de novo standard of review to the application of the exemption to the facts and [to] review the facts under a clearly erroneous standard.” 774 F. 2d, at 352, citing United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1202 (CA9) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 824 (1984). But nowhere in its opinion did the court ever mention any of the factual findings of the District Court, much less discuss or analyze them. The Court of Appeals seems to have believed that the District Court applied the wrong legal standar…
• United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1989)
  …rns of judicial administration will favor the appellate court, and the ques [*218] tion should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). This construction of the due deference standard is consistent with the standards for appellate review of other guideline issues. Sections 3742(e)(1) and (e)(2) clearly call for a de novo review when the appella…