Skip to main content
First Circuit· 4/22/2004

Crowe v. Bolduc

Citations

  • 365 F.3d 86
  • 58 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 315
  • 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7986
  • 2004 WL 858709

How courts have described this case

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

  • “We think that it would be patently unfair to subject a party to a forfeiture for assiduously following binding circuit precedent.”
  • “Absent special circumstances, a new rule of law will apply in the case before the court and in all subsequent cases.”
  • district court correctly regarded circuit precedent as “good law” despite Supreme Court dictum that “presaged the demise” of the stated rule
  • “A court in a civil case may apply a decision purely prospectively, binding neither the parties before it nor similarly situated parties in other pending cases . . . .”
  • “When a plaintiff obtains a jury verdict in a diversity case in which the substantive law of the forum state supplies the rules of decision, that state’s law governs the plaintiff’s entitlement to prejudgment interest.”
  • applying the Chevron Oil test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Selya, Stahl, Lynch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.