Barrs v. SOUTHERN CONFERENCE

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding complaint alleged 9 that defendant was “an indirect recipient of federal funding” where defendant “operates” and 10 “controls” federally funded program and is delegated authority by funding recipients
• adopting the reasoning of M.H.D. and concluding that plaintiff’s claim that a tax exemption constitutes federal financial assistance under Title IX “is not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate”
• adopting the reasoning of M.H.D. and concluding that plaintiff’s claim that a tax exemption constitutes federal financial assistance under Title IX “is not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate”
• adopting the reasoning of M.H.D. and concluding that plaintiff’s claim that a tax exemption constitutes federal financial assistance under Title IX “is not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate”
• adopting the reasoning of M.H.D. and concluding that plaintiff’s claim that a tax exemption constitutes federal financial assistance under Title IX “is not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate”
• adopting the reasoning of M.H.D. and concluding that plaintiff’s claim that a tax exemption constitutes federal financial assistance under Title IX “is not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).