Citation network
irwIn Vs. Veterans Administration
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1990
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
-
Irwin v. VeteransSearch
-
Administration - 498 U.S. 89 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Irwin v. VeteransSearch
-
Administration, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) Irwin v. VeteransSearch
-
Link v. WabashSearch
-
R. Co., 370 U. S. 626 , 370 U. S. 634 (1962) (quoting Smith v. AyerSearch
-
the common and established practice of providing notification through counsel, it must do so expressly. See Decker v. Anheuser-BuschSearch
-
s office which is acknowledged by a representative of that office qualifies as notice to the client. See Ringgold v. NationalSearch
-
Josiah-Faeduwor v. CommunicationsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
c) is a condition to its waiver of sovereign immunity, and thus must be strictly construed. See Library of Congress v. ShawSearch
-
have not been entirely consistent, even though the cases may be distinguished on their facts. In United States v. LockeSearch
-
filing deadline. But, as Justice WHITE points out in his concurring opinion, nearly thirty years earlier, in Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 352 U. S. 276 . More recently, in Bowen v. CitySearch
-
Hallstrom v. TillamookSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S. 535 , 445 U. S. 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. KingSearch
-
where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. BrownSearch
-
See Martinez v. OrrSearch
-
Milam v. U.SSearch
-
Saltz v. LehmanSearch
-
and Boddy v. DeanSearch
-
See Zipes v. TransSearch
-
Crown, Cork & Seal, Co. v. ParkerSearch
-
See Burnett v. NewSearch
-
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSearch
-
See Glus v. BrooklynSearch
-
as the one in this case, are conditions on the Government's waiver of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., United States v. MottazSearch
-
U. S. 156 , 453 U. S. 161 (1981) (quoting Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
Block v. NorthSearch
-
presumption for suits Page 498 U. S. 98 against private defendants. Our decision in Library of Congress v. ShawSearch
-
approach to cases involving sovereign immunity, it directly overrules a prior decision by this Court, Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
Such an attempt would reveal that Bowen v. CitySearch
-
The Court's failure to recognize the importance of sovereign immunity in statutory construction also ignores Brown v. GSASearch
-
remedies for discrimination in federal employment. We reached that conclusion despite our earlier holding in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
is true. The statute here, for example, was enacted in 1972, when the presumption was, as set forth in Soriano v. UnitedSearch
-
Welch v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 494 (1987), because, among other things, it promotes stability and protects expectations. Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
statutory interpretation, because Congress is in a position to overrule our decision if it so chooses. Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
VII, a remedial statute, should be construed in favor of those whom the legislation was designed to protect. See Zipes v. TransSearch
-
Love v. PullmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Irwin v. VeteransSearch
-
Smith v. AyerSearch
-
See Decker v. Anheuser-BuschSearch
-
See Ringgold v. NationalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial