Citation network
Pullman-standard Vs. Swint
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 273 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Pullman-Standard v. SwintSearch
-
U.S. 273 (1982) Pullman-Standard v. SwintSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
a seniority system, even though the result may be to perpetuate pre-Act discrimination. In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. HardisonSearch
-
District Court approached the question of discriminatory intent in the manner suggested by the Fifth Circuit in James v. StockhamSearch
-
Ibid. Finally, quoting from East v. RomineSearch
-
previously noted the vexing nature of the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law. See Baumgartner v. UnitedSearch
-
Treating issues of intent as factual matters for the trier of fact is commonplace. In Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
in the past. We recognized that issue as essentially factual, subject to the clearly erroneous rule. In Commissioner v. DubersteinSearch
-
had been made. Both issues were held to be questions of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule. In United States v. YellowSearch
-
Rule 52. Justice Black's dissent in Yellow Cab suggested a contrary approach. Relying on United States v. GriffithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a) in the course of disagreeing with the District Court's resolution of the factual issues deemed relevant under James v. StockhamSearch
-
DeMarco v. UnitedSearch
-
of the law, a remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue. Kelley v. SouthernSearch
-
Together with No. 80-1193, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. SwintSearch
-
In United States v. UnitedSearch
-
See Jackson v. CitySearch
-
Payne v. McLemore'sSearch
-
Wilkins v. UniversitySearch
-
Lindsey v. MississippiSearch
-
Joshi v. FloridaSearch
-
Phillips v. JointSearch
-
Danner v. UnitedSearch
-
Thompson v. LelandSearch
-
Crawford v. WesternSearch
-
Burdine v. TexasSearch
-
Williams v. TallahasseeSearch
-
Parson v. KaiserSearch
-
Causey v. FordSearch
-
East v. RomineSearch
-
are independently reviewable. In Baumgartner v. UnitedSearch
-
has its roots in this discussion in Baumgartner. In Galena Oaks Corp. v. ScofieldSearch
-
that an appellate court may review free of the clearly erroneous rule. Causey v. FordSearch
-
Motor Co., supra, at 421, relying on Galena Oaks Corp. v. ScofieldSearch
-
and, as such, was deemed to be independently reviewable. The passage from East v. RomineSearch
-
which was repeated in the cases before us now, supra at 456 U. S. 285 , rested on the opinion in Causey v. FordSearch
-
Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSearch
-
There is substantial authority in the Circuits on both sides of this question. Compare United States ex rel. Johnson v. JohnsonSearch
-
Stafos v. JarvisSearch
-
and Johnson v. SalisburySearch
-
F.2d 374, 377 (CA6 1971), with Rogers v. BatesSearch
-
and Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. McCoySearch
-
that conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact are independently reviewable by an appellate court, e.g., Bogardus v. CommissionerSearch
-
Helvering v. Tex-PennSearch
-
U. S. 123 , 295 U. S. 131 (1935). But cf. Commissioner v. DubersteinSearch
-
Rule v. InternationalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial