RANDOLPH, AS CONSERVATOR OF RANDOLPH
v.
CERVANTES ET AL.
RANDOLPH, AS CONSERVATOR OF RANDOLPH
CERVANTES ET AL.
525 U.S. 822
Supreme Court of the United States (1998)
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
-
United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000)…1997) (treating front pay as compensatory damages for “future pecuniary losses” under § 1981a(b)(3) in part because the Sixth Circuit had historically “treated front pay, in most contexts, as a legal, rather than an equitable remedy”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 822, 119 S.Ct. 64, 142 L.Ed.2d 50 (1998). We hold that front pay retains its equitable nature under Title VII after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and, thus, that the district court did not err in deciding front pay without submission to the j…
-
Cal. Dental Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 526 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1999)…Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978); 7 Areeda, ¶ 1507b, at 397; 11 H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1914c, pp. 313-315 (1998); see also Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 134 F. 3d 1010, 1019 (CA10), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 822 (1998); United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F. 3d 658, 669 (CA3 1993); Capital Imaging Associates v. Mohawk Valley Medical Associates, Inc., 996 F. 2d 537, 543 (CA2), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 947 (1993); Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 735…