WILMSHURST ET AL.

v.

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• Sen. Arlen Specter v. Garrett, 971 F.2d 936 (3d Cir. 1992)
  …before a benefit can be withdrawn does not in itself create a protected property interest. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249-51, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747-48, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Stephany v. Wagner, 835 F. 2d 497, 500 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1207, 108 S.Ct. 2851, 101 L.Ed.2d 888 (1988); see also, Hill v. Group Three Housing Dev. Corp., 799 F. 2d 385, 391 (8th Cir.1986) (intent to benefit plaintiff not enough to create cognizable property interest). The mere fact that the Shipyard cannot be…
• J.L. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 971 F.2d 260 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …pecific procedural requirements of other substantive federal statutes. But we do not agree with the broader view, suggested in Cleghom and explicitly adopted in Davidson [v. United States Department of Energy, 838 F. 2d 850 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1207, 108 S.Ct. 2849, 101 L.Ed.2d 886 (1988) ], that a challenge to agency action on the ground that it conflicts with a substan [*267] tive federal statute (such as the Rehabilitation Act) must always be brought under that statute, and not under the APA…