§Why CasetextPricing

Conitz v. Teck Alaska Incorporated

MOTION for Permanent Injunction and Jury Instruction

64 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan

    536 U.S. 101 (2002)   Cited 10,285 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding limitations period for hostile-work-environment claim runs from the last act composing the claim

  2. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,346 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  3. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,886 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

  4. Baker v. Carr

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)   Cited 5,233 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

  5. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston

    469 U.S. 111 (1985)   Cited 1,856 times
    Holding McDonnell Douglas is inapplicable when direct evidence is presented

  6. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

    401 U.S. 424 (1971)   Cited 2,764 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance

  7. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,099 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  8. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

    490 U.S. 642 (1989)   Cited 979 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union

  9. Morton v. Mancari

    417 U.S. 535 (1974)   Cited 1,354 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Indian Commerce Clause empowers Congress to “single Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation.”

  10. Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.

    488 U.S. 469 (1989)   Cited 792 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expiration of challenged ordinance did not moot dispute over whether defendant's action was "unlawful and thus entitle[d] appellee to damages"

  11. Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law

    42 U.S.C. § 1981   Cited 37,932 times   237 Legal Analyses
    Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race

  12. Section 2000e-2 - Unlawful employment practices

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2   Cited 28,319 times   171 Legal Analyses
    Adopting case law prior to June 4, 1989, “with respect to the concept of ‘alternative employment practice’ ”

  13. Section 1606 - Regional Corporations

    43 U.S.C. § 1606   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting Native regional corporations right of first refusal to shares transferred to a non-Native pursuant to intestate succession

  14. Section 1602 - Definitions

    43 U.S.C. § 1602   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Including those defined by blood quantum without regard to membership in any group

  15. Section 1626 - Relation to other programs

    43 U.S.C. § 1626   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Describing ANCSA's relationship to "other programs"

  16. Section 450e - Transferred

    25 U.S.C. § 450e   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that "preferences and opportunities for training and employment . . . shall be given to Indians"

  17. Section 703 - Payments to States

    42 U.S.C. § 703   Cited 10 times

    (a) Statutory provisions applicable From the sums appropriated therefor and the allotments available under section 702(c) of this title, the Secretary shall make payments as provided by section 6503(a) of title 31 to each State provided such an allotment under section 702(c) of this title, for each quarter, of an amount equal to four-sevenths of the total of the sums expended by the State during such quarter in carrying out the provisions of this subchapter. (b) Unobligated allotments Any amount

  18. Section 1205 - Lands to be transferred

    45 U.S.C. § 1205   Cited 3 times

    (a) Availability of lands among rail properties Lands among the rail properties of the Alaska Railroad shall not be- (1) available for selection under section 12 of the Act of January 2, 1976, as amended ( 43 U.S.C. 1611, note), subject to the exception contained in section 12(b)(8)(i)(D) of such Act, as amended by subsection (d)(5) of this section; (2) available for conveyance under section 1425 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ( Public Law 96-487; 94 Stat. 2515); (3) available

  19. Section 1629 - Cape Krusenstern National Monument land exchange between United States and NANA Regional Corporation, Inc

    43 U.S.C. § 1629   Cited 3 times

    (a) Definitions For purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: (1) the term "The Agreement" or "Agreement" means the agreement entitled "Terms and Conditions Governing Legislative Land Consolidation and Exchange between NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., and the United States" executed by the Secretary of the Interior and the President of NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., on January 31 and January 24, 1985, respectively. (2) the term "transportation system" means

  20. Section 1629c - Duration of alienability restrictions

    43 U.S.C. § 1629c   Cited 3 times

    (a) General rule Alienability restrictions shall continue until terminated in accordance with the procedures established by this section. No such termination shall take effect until after July 16, 1993: Provided, however, That this prohibition shall not apply to a Native Corporation whose board of directors approves, no later than March 1, 1992, a resolution (certified by the corporate secretary of such corporation) electing to decline the application of such prohibition. (b) Opt-out procedure (1)