Case law

Heitland v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

551 F.2d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 1977

Tanfara v. Esperdy, 347 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1965). Since the Board’s January 25,1974, decision constituted a final order in that appeal, see Foti v. … In Wong v.

Lewis v. Rockefeller

431 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 1, 1970

The State countered that appellant could cite no decision squarely supporting his position, while it offered two: Schawartzberg v. United States Board of Parole, 399 F.2d 297 (10th Cir. 1968), and Matter of Briguglio v. … Hyser v.

United States ex rel. Gegiow v. Uhl

215 F. 573 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 14, 1914

In the case at bar the decision of the board of special inquiry was affirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor. *574 In U. S. ex rel. Rosen v. Williams, 200 Fed. 538, 541 , 118 C. C. … Ed. 1108 ; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., 158 U. S. 538 , 15 Sup. Ct. 967, 39 L. Ed. 1082 ; U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253 , 25 Sup. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040 ; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460 , 32 Sup Ct. 734, 56 L.

Rasmussen v. General Dynamics Corporation

993 F.2d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 1993

The Board, as it is not a "policy-making" body, is entitled to no special deference. Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268 , 278 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 509 , 514 n. 18, 66 L.Ed.2d 446 (1980). … See also Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Barnard, II, 933 F.2d 256, 258 (4th Cir.1991); Stevens v.

Westchester Lodge 2186, Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

329 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 1, 1964

See Rutland Railway Corp. v. … If a minor dispute is not pending before the Adjustment Board, the District Court has no power to grant injunctive relief. Manion v. Kansas City Terminal Ry.

James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Conners Marine Co.

141 F.2d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 1, 1944

Since Insurance Co. v. … Barlow v. Scott, 24 N.Y. 40, 46 ; Williams v. Slote, 70 N.Y. 601 ; Hurwitz v. Hurwitz, App.D.C., 136 F.2d 796, 799 .

Phillips v. United States Grain Corp.

279 F. 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 18, 1922

United States v. Hammers, 221 U. S. 220 , 31 Sup. Ct. 593, 55 L. Ed. 710 ; United States v. Hermanos, 209 U. S. 337 , 28 Sup. Ct. 532, 52 L. Ed. 821 . … Co. v. Curran, 256 Fed. 768 , 168 C. C. A. 114 .

Gerald Schwartz v. Marttie Louis Thompson, Counsel

497 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 21, 1974

Board of Education of City of Chicago, 470 F.2d 802, 805 (7th Cir. 1972) (no stigma in a rating report that the employee was “anti: establishment”); Simard v. … Compare, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 575 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (no foreclosure where the em *433 ployee was barred from teaching at only one state university); Crabtree v.

United States v. Edgar Rivas

377 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2004

Background The pertinent events occurred on board the “M/V Antwerpen.” Defendant Rivas, Genebraldo Pulgar-Sanchez (“Pulgar”), and Ruddy Garcia, who is Rivas’s cousin, were serving as seamen on the vessel. … See United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2002).

In re Crowley

55 F. 283 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1893

The case is not that *285 of Davies v. Arthur, 98 U. … The third point was that the «tress patterns should have been assessed at the rates Imposed l>v paragraph 898 as embroideries.

Pascarell v. New York Shipping Association, Inc.

650 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 20, 1981

PASCARELL, Acting Regional Director of the Twenty-Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, v. … Consolidated Express Inc. v.

Hankard v. Town Of Avon

126 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 2, 1997

Thomas v. Board of Educ., 607 F.2d 1043 , 1047 (2d Cir.1979). … See Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d Cir.1987); Koch v.

Kelly v. Board of Education of of Central School District No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston and Cambria, Niagara County

603 F.2d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 1979

603 F.2d 213 Kelly v. … Board of Education of of Central School District No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston and Cambria, Niagara County No. 78-7403, 78-7456 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 4/6/79 1 W.D.N.Y. AFFIRMED

The Carlo Poma

259 F. 369 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 14, 1919

The Italian Ambassador suggested to the court: “Count V. … Ed. 875 ; Long v. The Tampico (D. C.) 16 Fed. 491 ; The Attualita, 238 Fed. 909 , 152 C. C. A. 43 .

Duplan v. City of New York

888 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 30, 2018

17-1359-cv Duplan v. … City of Boston, 857 F.3d 69, 72–75 (1st Cir. 2017); Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Campbell v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gambrill

112 F.2d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1940

In United States v. Van Nostrand, 94 F.2d 510 , and Commissioner v. … Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co., 297 U.S. 496 , 56 S.Ct. 569 , 80 L.Ed. 824 . The orders of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed.

Time, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

710 F.2d 34 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 1983

(Act), a proceeding which has spawned two lengthy decisions by this Court, see Time, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 685 F.2d 760 (2d Cir.1982); Newsweek, Inc. v. … See National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v.

United States v. Lemuel Leon Orr, Jr.

474 F.2d 1365 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 13, 1973

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 , 85 S.Ct. 850 , 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965); Lovallo v. Resor, 443 F.2d 1262 (2d Cir. 1971). … Checkman v. Laird, 2 Cir., 469 F.2d 773 (1972), “it is arguable” that a local board’s statement of reasons was required prior to the 1971 amendments, see also Fein v. Selective Serv.

United States v. Czarnikow-Rionda Co.

40 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 7, 1930

The court below found that the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation was the principal under the contract and that the United States could not maintain the libel, citing Harwood v. … Ed. 131 ; United States v. Walter, 263 U. S. 18 , 44 S. Ct. 10 , *216 68 L. Ed. 137 ), and has never acted except as agent for the government (United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Western Union, 275 U.

Local 140 Security Fund Claimant-Appellant v. William S. Hack, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Sleep Products, Inc.

242 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 1957

"The priority is attached to the debt, and not to the person of the creditor; to the claim, and not to the claimant." 6 26 In Nathanson v. National Labor Relations Board, 344 U.S. 26 , 73 S.Ct. 80 , 97 L.Ed. 23 , Mr. … The theme of the Bankruptcy Act is `equality of distribution', Sampsell v.