Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Kathryn A. Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire (1st Cir. 1983)
- Nyberg v. City of Virginia (8th Cir. 1982)
- Nyberg v. City of Virginia (8th Cir. 1982)
- Dallas Ray Delay v. United States (8th Cir. 1979)
- Baker v. Matheson (Utah 1979)
- United States v. Bruce Thompson (10th Cir. 1978)
- In re Issac Washington and Peter Rinaldi (5th Cir. 1976)
- Roe v. Arizona Board of Regents (Ariz. 1976)
- Doe v. Bridgeton Hospital Ass'n, Inc. (N.J. 1976)
- Roe v. Arizona Board of Regents (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
- In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative District (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012)
- Reproductive Health Service v. Webster (8th Cir. 1988)
- Matter of Ass'n of Trial Lawyers of Am. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988)
- Reproductive Health Service v. Webster (8th Cir. 1988)
- Planned Parenthood Association/chicago Area, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Chicago Transit Authority (7th Cir. 1985)
- Helminski v. Supreme Court of Colorado (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1985)
- COUNTY EXEC., PRINCE GEO'S CTY. v. Doe (Md. 1984)
- Kathryn A. Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire (1st Cir. 1983)
- Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Society (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1983)
- Stalland v. South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners (District Court, D. South Dakota 1982)
- Law v. Maercklein (N.D. 1980)
- United States v. Luke A. Nelligan (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Thomas Clinton Martin and Thomas Ray Martin (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Burt Steven Mikka (9th Cir. 1978)
- John Peter Galanis v. Ermen Pallanck, U.S. Marshal for the District of Connecticut (2d Cir. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 415 U. S. 974.] Brief for appellants does not comply with this Court’s Rules 39 and 40 with respect to conciseness, statement of questions without unnecessary detail, and printing of appendices thereto. Accordingly, as provided in paragraph 5 of Rule 40, brief of appellants is hereby stricken. Counsel for appellants may file a brief complying with the Rules within 20 days of the date of this order. Oral argument will be allowed only by counsel who have filed briefs that conform to the Rules.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.