Citation network
United States Vs. Burke
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 26, 1992
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. 229 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus United States V. BurkeSearch
-
Stephen v. BomseSearch
-
Commissioner v. GlenshawSearch
-
a), which 3 Compare the Sixth Circuit's opinion in this case with Sparrow v. CommissionerSearch
-
U. S. App. D. C. 259, 949 F.2d 434 (1991) (Title VII backpay awards not excludable), and Thompson v. CommissionerSearch
-
F.2d 709 (CA4 1989) (same). See also Johnston v. HarrisSearch
-
c) (1991). See Threlkeld v. CommissionerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Although these damages often are described in compensatory terms, see Memphis Community School Dist. v. StachuraSearch
-
D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies 136 (1973). Cf. Molzof v. UnitedSearch
-
Threlkeld v. CommissionerSearch
-
injuries to the individual, such as those affecting emotions, reputation, or character, as well. See, e. g., Rickel v. CommissionerSearch
-
Roemer v. CommissionerSearch
-
Cum. Bull. 3, acquiescing in Seay v. CommissionerSearch
-
Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
held that Title VII plaintiffs, unlike ordinary tort plaintiffs, are not entitled to a jury trial. See, e. g., Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122 , 1125 (CA5 1969). See also Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
Great American Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. NovotnySearch
-
Sparrow v. CommissionerSearch
-
see Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
distress, harm to reputation, or other consequential damages (e. g., a ruined credit rating). See Walker v. FordSearch
-
a)(2) if the relevant cause of action evidenced a tort-like conception of injury and remedy. Cf. Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
or future lost earnings. See, e. g., Shore v. FederalSearch
-
may be awarded. Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
with the relief available under Title VII. Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
scheme was expressly modeled on the backpay provision of the National Labor Relations Act. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
for purposes of the Social Security Act. See Social Security Board v. NierotkoSearch
-
unpersuasive in light of those statutes' differing remedial schemes. For example, respondents' reliance on Goodman v. LukensSearch
-
See Brieffor Respondents 35-37. Respondents' attempt to apply the Court's statement in Curtis v. LoetherSearch
-
since it is not within the range of reasonable interpretation of the statutory text. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
a category of text for which we have adopted a rule of narrow construction. See, e. g., United States v. CentennialSearch
-
SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment priate means, see, e. g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. StateSearch
-
Treasury would effectively be empowered to repeal taxes that the Congress enacts. Cf. Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSearch
-
the statutory text) may be relevant to whether penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
vast majority of cases, distinguishes our adversary system of justice from the inquisitorial one. See United States v. PryceSearch
-
agree upon it-particularly when the judgment will reinforce error already prevalent in the system. See, e. g., Arcadia v. OhioSearch
-
different purposes) between tort claims and claims under antidiscrimination statutes other than Title VII. See Goodman v. LukensSearch
-
Title VII's ban on discrimination is easily envisioned as a contractual term implied by law. See Hishon v. KingSearch
-
the default rule of statutory interpretation that exclusions from income must be narrowly construed. See United States v. CentennialSearch
-
a)(2), see ante, at 239, and there can be little doubt about this point. See Goodman v. LukensSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. BurkeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial