First Circuit· 7/8/2009
McCullen v. Coakley
Citations
- 571 F.3d 167
- 62 A.L.R. 6th 739
- 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14927
- 2009 WL 1942069
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “avoiding waiver requires more than a hint that a particular theory may be lurking; it necessitates some developed argumentation addressed to that particular theory”
- deeming waived arguments hinted at but not developed -9- The New Trial/Remittitur Issues In its post-trial motion, Misty Dawn blasted Bielunas's counsel for suggesting a damage award in his opening statement ($2,500,000) and closing argument ($3,328,767
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Howard, Selya, Hansen
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- McCullen v. CoakleySupreme Court· 2014-06-26· cited 261×
- Limone v. United StatesFirst Circuit· 2009-08-27· cited 162×
- Brown v. City of PittsburghThird Circuit· 2009-10-30· cited 147×
- United States v. MarcavageThird Circuit· 2010-06-16· cited 138×
- URI Student Senate v. Town of NarragansettFirst Circuit· 2011-01-05· cited 101×
- Walter Hoye, Ii v. City of OaklandNinth Circuit· 2011-07-28· cited 95×
- Aaron Ross v. Wayne EarlyFourth Circuit· 2014-03-05· cited 78×
- Hightower v. City of BostonFirst Circuit· 2012-08-30· cited 65×
- Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc.First Circuit· 2010-10-08· cited 53×
- United States v. CartaFirst Circuit· 2010-01-15· cited 47×
- Ross v. EarlyD. Maryland· 2012-09-25· cited 42×
- Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of MendonFirst Circuit· 2014-10-08· cited 36×
- Cutting v. City of PortlandFirst Circuit· 2015-09-11· cited 34×
- McCullen v. CoakleyFirst Circuit· 2013-01-09· cited 18×
- Behar v. Pennsylvania Department of TransportationM.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-03-31· cited 10×
- Williams v. Puerto RicoD. Puerto Rico· 2012-12-21· cited 8×
- Mosley v. City of Pittsburgh Public School DistrictW.D. Pennsylvania· 2010-03-29· cited 7×
- Ross v. EarlyD. Maryland· 2011-02-25· cited 5×
- Worma v. HealeyDistrict of Columbia· 2018-04-05· cited 5×
- McCullen v. CoakleySupreme Court· 2010-03-22· cited 2×
Cites
40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court· 1987-05-26· cited 5,104×
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court· 1972-06-26· cited 4,586×
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1973-06-25· cited 4,338×
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court· 1982-03-03· cited 3,694×
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court· 1989-08-30· cited 3,406×
- United States v. Ilario M.A. ZanninoFirst Circuit· 1990-01-10· cited 2,914×
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court· 1984-05-15· cited 2,188×
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court· 1984-04-30· cited 2,137×
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1937-12-06· cited 2,059×
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court· 1992-06-22· cited 2,052×
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-ViolenceSupreme Court· 1984-06-29· cited 1,847×
- Parker v. LevySupreme Court· 1974-06-19· cited 1,846×
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of VirginiaSupreme Court· 1995-06-29· cited 1,827×
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court· 1994-08-24· cited 1,695×
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 2008-05-19· cited 1,677×
- Hill v. ColoradoSupreme Court· 2000-06-28· cited 1,399×
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court· 2008-03-18· cited 1,365×
- Rust v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1991-05-23· cited 1,298×
- Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.Supreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 1,260×
- Boos v. BarrySupreme Court· 1988-03-22· cited 1,104×
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.