Citation network
MartIn Vs. Wilks
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1989
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 755 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. WilksSearch
-
U.S. 755 (1989) Martin v. WilksSearch
-
Penn-Central Merger and N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U. S. 486 , nor Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
affect their rights. The District Court denied the motions as untimely, and approved the decrees. United States v. JeffersonSearch
-
Both the denial of intervention and the denial of injunctive relief were affirmed on appeal. United States v. JeffersonSearch
-
U. S. 32 , 311 U. S. 40 (1940). See, e.g., Page 490 U. S. 762 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSearch
-
U. S. 322 , 439 U. S. 327 , n. 7 (1979). See, e.g., Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case. We begin with the words of Justice Brandeis in Chase National Bank v. NorwalkSearch
-
Central Merger and N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U. S. 486 (1968), and Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
policy favoring voluntary settlement of employment discrimination claims, referred to in cases such as Carson v. AmericanSearch
-
Firefighters v. ClevelandSearch
-
Together with No. 87-1639, Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama, et al. v. WilksSearch
-
et al., and No. 87-1668, Arrington et al. v. WilksSearch
-
not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party. See Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
legal proceedings may terminate preexisting rights if the scheme is otherwise consistent with due process. See NLRB v. BildiscoSearch
-
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSearch
-
rule or its functional equivalent, see, e.g., Striff v. MasonSearch
-
Thaggard v. JacksonSearch
-
F.2d 66, 68-69 (CA5 1982), cert. denied sub nom. Ashley v. CitySearch
-
Stotts v. MemphisSearch
-
Fire Dept., 679 F.2d 541, 558 (CA6 1982), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Firefighters v. StottsSearch
-
Dennison v. LosSearch
-
Goins v. BethlehemSearch
-
Society Hill Civic Assn. v. HarrisSearch
-
decision of which we are aware that would generally allow collateral attacks on consent decrees by nonparties is Dunn v. CareySearch
-
rights in the first series of cases because they had neither intervened nor been joined as parties. See Firefighters v. ClevelandSearch
-
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSearch
-
consent decrees obviously could not deprive them of any contractual rights, such as seniority, cf. W. R. Grace & Co. v. RubberSearch
-
Workers, 461 U. S. 757 (1983), or accrued vacation pay, cf. Massachusetts v. MorashSearch
-
legal rights, such as the right to have their employer comply with federal statutes like Title VII, cf. Firefighters v. ClevelandSearch
-
Griffith v. BankSearch
-
in Steelworkers v. WeberSearch
-
Ibid. Cf. Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
the motion to intervene filed in the earlier litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders. See United States v. JeffersonSearch
-
contended that the consent decrees, even if valid, did not constitute a defense to their action, cf. W. R. Grace & Co. v. RubberSearch
-
he or she can always collaterally attack a judgment for certain narrowly defined defects. See, e.g., Klapprott v. UnitedSearch
-
and cases cited in n 5, supra. See also Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
coram nobis vacating conviction based on Government concealment of critical contradictory evidence in Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
Walker v. BirminghamSearch
-
As JUSTICE O'CONNOR observed in Wygant v. PageSearch
-
the presence of a facially valid warrant may not be taken as evidence that the police acted in good faith. See Malley v. BriggsSearch
-
compulsion may be evidence that the employer is acting in good faith and without discriminatory intent. Cf. Ashley v. CitySearch
-
disparate treatment under Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause. App. to Pet. for Cert. 107a, citing United States v. JeffersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial