Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Arbaugh Vs. Y and H Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 22, 2006

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

46 entries 2 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. Scarborough Vs. Principi US Supreme Court · May 03, 2004
  2. Weinberger Vs. Salfi US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1975
  3. Arbaugh v. Y &
    Search
  4. H Corp. - 04-944 (2006) Syllabus October Term, 2005 Arbaugh V. Y &
    Search
  5. may be raised at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment, Rule 12(h)(3). See Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  6. the Federal Constitution or laws. See Bell v. Hood
    Search
  7. to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
    Search
  8. of an essential element of a claim is at issue, however, the jury is the proper trier of contested facts. Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  9. Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  10. other Members joined, except Alito, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Arbaugh v. Y &
    Search
  11. H Corp. - 04-944 (2006) Opinion of the Court Arbaugh V. Y &
    Search
  12. Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-944 Jenifer Arbaugh, Petitioner V. Y &
    Search
  13. See Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  14. s employee-numerosity requirement is jurisdictional), and Armbruster v. Quinn
    Search
  15. F. 2d 1332, 1335 (CA6 1983) (same), with, e.g ., Da Silva v. Kinsho
    Search
  16. Nesbit v. Gears
    Search
  17. Steel Co. v. Citizens
    Search
  18. See, e.g. , United States v. Robinson
    Search
  19. accord Eberhart v. United
    Search
  20. See also Carlisle v. United
    Search
  21. to adjudicate the claim in suit. Steel Co. , 523 U. S., at 91. Cases of this genre include Hishon v. King
    Search
  22. Spalding, 467 U. S. 69 (1984), and EEOC v. Arabian
    Search
  23. the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Bell v. Hood
    Search
  24. essential element of a claim for relief is at issue, however, the jury is the proper trier of contested facts. Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  25. Footnote 6 See Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
    Search
  26. features Walters v. Metropolitan
    Search
  27. Footnote 9 In EEOC v. Commercial
    Search
  28. see Steel Co. v. Citizens
    Search
  29. provision that expressly restricts application of a jurisdiction-conferring statute. See, e.g. , Weinberger v. Salfi
    Search
  30. See Bell v. Hood
    Search
  31. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
    Search
  32. Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  33. Opinion of the Court Arbaugh V. Y &
    Search
  34. Jenifer Arbaugh, Petitioner V. Y &
    Search
  35. and Armbruster v. Quinn
    Search
  36. Da Silva v. Kinsho
    Search
  37. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  38. Eberhart v. United
    Search
  39. Carlisle v. United
    Search
  40. Hishon v. King
    Search
  41. and EEOC v. Arabian
    Search
  42. of the United States. See Bell v. Hood
    Search
  43. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
    Search
  44. Walters v. Metropolitan
    Search
  45. In EEOC v. Commercial
    Search
  46. United States v. Cotton
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial