Citation network
Gomez-perez Vs. Potter
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 2008
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 Gomez-Perez V. PotterSearch
-
ruling that retaliation is covered by similar language in other antidiscrimination statutes. First, in Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
that is its plain meaning. See, e.g., Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
reasoning, and the Government, both in Jackson and in CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSearch
-
the right of action under Title IX, the statute at issue in Jackson , is implied and not express, see Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
and 633a were enacted seven years apart rather than simultaneously, see Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
joined as to all but Part I. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Gomez-Perez v. PotterSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Gomez-Perez V. PotterSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-1321 Myrna Gomez-Perez, Petitioner V. JohnSearch
-
Supp. V), does not cover retaliation, id. , at 60, creating a split among the Courts of Appeals. Compare Forman v. SmallSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
we are guided by our prior decisions interpreting similar language in other antidiscrimination statutes. In Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
that is its plain meaning. See Tennessee v. LaneSearch
-
Jones v. AlfredSearch
-
Ibid. More recently, in Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, in Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10, in CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSearch
-
to have reasoned that, because the private right of action under Title IX is implied and not express, see Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
s federal-sector discrimination ban. Lehman v. NakshianSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 44 (quoting United States v. NordicSearch
-
c). See United States v. WhiteSearch
-
quoting United States v. MitchellSearch
-
from the reasoning of Sullivan and Jackson , The Chief Justice, citing Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
Post , at 4 (dissenting opinion). But as the Court explains today in CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSearch
-
Footnote 2 The situation here is quite different from that which we faced in Lehman v. NakshianSearch
-
Because Congress had good reason to expect that this broad ban would be interpreted in the same way that Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
the inference that respondent asks us to draw is unfounded. Gomez-Perez v. PotterSearch
-
Roberts, C. J., Dissenting Gomez-Perez V. PotterSearch
-
and retaliation claims. To support this proposition, the Court principally relies on our decisions in Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Hunting Park, Inc. , 396 U. S. 229 (1969), and Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
s opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSearch
-
provisions are indeed conceptually distinct, and serve distinct purposes. In Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
Ante , at 10 (quoting Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
In Lehman v. NakshianSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals. Footnote 1 To the extent there was any disagreement about whether Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
case, or whether it dealt only with third-party standing, the view put forth by the Court won the day in Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
s) interpretation as a matter of stare decisis . See CBOCS West, Inc. v. HumphriesSearch
-
June 2007). Gomez-Perez v. PotterSearch
-
s dissent. I write separately to reiterate my view that Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
Jackson v. BirminghamSearch
-
Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
Myrna Gomez-Perez, Petitioner V. JohnSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial