HARTIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.
v.
ZBARAZ ET AL.; MARINO ET AL. V. ORTIZ ET AL.; AND COSTELLO ET AL. V. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL.; WASHINGTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; OLAVARRIETA V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; SIERRA CLUB V. SHELL OIL CO. ET AL.; AQUARIAN FOUNDATION ET AL. V. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARDS & BARBIERI; BUDINSKY, TDBA COLPAT MINE V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ET AL.; ASAM V. LEE COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ET AL.; MIHALEK CORP. ET AL. V. MICHIGAN ET AL.; CITY OF PAGEDALE, MISSOURI V. HARRIS ET AL.; ATAMIAN V. RUBIN ET AL.; ANA LEON T. V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO ET AL.; BENOIT V. CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CROWLEY, LOUISIANA, ET AL.; MARTIN V. PEREZOUS ET AL.; HENRY V. ZIMMERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER AT GRATERFORD, ET AL.; MOYA-GOMEZ V. WISCONSIN
HARTIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ZBARAZ ET AL.; MARINO ET AL. V. ORTIZ ET AL.; AND COSTELLO ET AL. V. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL.; WASHINGTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; OLAVARRIETA V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; SIERRA CLUB V. SHELL OIL CO. ET AL.; AQUARIAN FOUNDATION ET AL. V. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARDS & BARBIERI; BUDINSKY, TDBA COLPAT MINE V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ET AL.; ASAM V. LEE COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ET AL.; MIHALEK CORP. ET AL. V. MICHIGAN ET AL.; CITY OF PAGEDALE, MISSOURI V. HARRIS ET AL.; ATAMIAN V. RUBIN ET AL.; ANA LEON T. V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO ET AL.; BENOIT V. CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CROWLEY, LOUISIANA, ET AL.; MARTIN V. PEREZOUS ET AL.; HENRY V. ZIMMERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER AT GRATERFORD, ET AL.; MOYA-GOMEZ V. WISCONSIN
484 U.S. 1082
Supreme Court of the United States (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paganucci v. City OF NEW York, 993 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1993)…86). An equally divided United States Supreme Court affirmed our decision in Marino and the Court unanimously upheld our decision in Hispanic Society. Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 587, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (per curiam), reh’g denied, 484 U.S. 1082, 108 S.Ct. 1064, 98 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1988). The following year, the Supreme Court held that a collateral attack on a Title VII consent decree is permissible. Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989). Mr. Podolsky then move…