SOLOMON ET AL.

v.

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR NASSAU SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN., F. A.; AND PATTULLO ET AL. V. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR NASSAU SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN., F. A.

Citator

Cited By

• Lawrence and next friend v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1996)
  …decisions, see, [*167] e. g., Conner v. Simler, 367 U. S. 486 (1961), new federal statutes, see, e. g., Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 329 U. S. 685 (1946), administrative reinterpretations of federal statutes, see, e. g., Schmidt v. Espy, 513 U. S. 801 (1994), new state statutes, see, e. g., Louisiana v. Hays, 512 U. S. 1230 (1994), changed factual circumstances, see, e.g., NLRB v. Federal Motor Truck Co., 325 U. S. 838 (1945) (demilitarization of employees), and confessions of error or other posi…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Dep't of the Interior v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1996)
  …recent years occasionally entered a “GVR” in light of a position newly taken by the Solicitor General where the United States was the prevailing party below. See, e. g., Stutson v. United States, 516 U. S. 193 (1996) (per cu-riam); Schmidt v. Espy, 513 U. S. 801 (1994); Wells v. United States, 511 U. S. 1050 (1994); Reed v. United States, 510 U. S. 1188 (1994); Chappell v. United States, 494 U. S. 1075 (1990). Even that extension of our earlier practice is in my view unsound. See Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U…
• Thomas et ux. v. Am. Home Prods., Inc., 519 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1996)
  …n, as applicable to our practice of GVR’ing. See, e. g., Lawrence v. Chater, supra, at 166-167. Indeed, most of the cases in which we exercise our power to GVR plainly do not meet the “tests” set forth in Rule [*915] 10. See, e. g., Schmidt v. Espy, 513 U. S. 801 (1994) (GVR in light of administrative reinterpretations of federal statutes); Crouse v. United States, ante, p. 801 (GVR in light of Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81 (1996)); Greater N. O. Broadcasting v. United States, ante, p. 801 (GVR in lig…