Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.23s
Wagner v. Chiari & Ilecki, LLP
973 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 4, 2020
19-758 Wagner v. … Bank v.
Cited 42 timesPublished146 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 1945
See Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 578 , 46 S.Ct. 425 , 70 L.Ed. 738 ; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 615-617 , 51 S.Ct. 570 , 75 L.Ed. 1302 ; Tutun v. … United States, 1 Cir., 12 F.2d 763, 764 ; United States v. Rossler, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 463 ; In re Naturalization of Aliens, etc., D.C.E.D.Wis., 1 F,2d 594, 601.
Cited 5 timesPublishedFleet Bank, National Association v. Burke
160 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 9, 1998
Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); see also Franchise Tax Board [v. … See, e.g., United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Muir, 792 F.2d 356, 364 (3d Cir.1986); Federal Home Loan Bank Board v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedBausch's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Two Cases)
186 F.2d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 25, 1951
Edward Bausch had been vice-president for many years, and finally became president and subsequently chairman of the board. … O’Daniel’s Estate v.
Cited 35 timesPublishedGrace Line, Inc., and National Bulk Carriers, Inc., Intervening v. Panama Canal Company
243 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 8, 1957
Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 , 68 S.Ct. 431 , 92 L.Ed. 568 ; Pan American Airways Co. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 810 . … United States, 4 Wall. 435, 445-447 , 71 U.S. 435 , 18 U.Ed. 419; United States Sugar Equalization Board v. P.
Cited 4 timesPublished268 F. App'x 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 7, 2008
Chen filed a motion to reopen in May 2003, which, after the intervention of this court, Jie Chen v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.2006), was eventually granted in December 2006, when the Board reinstated the appeal. … See INS v.
Cited 1 timesPublished43 F. App'x 417 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 1, 2002
SUMMARY ORDER On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, following a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, reversal of the Board’s order by opinion, 226 F.3d 141 , and a petition … See Calcano-Martinez v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedVaughan v. Metal Lathers' Local 46 Pension Fund
626 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 25, 1980
Joint Plumbing Industry Board, 623 F.2d 207, slip op. 2359 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 1980) and Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, 623 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 1980). … Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, supra, at 203; see Agro v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, supra, at 210.
Cited 2 timesPublishedBurgio And Campofelice, Inc. v. Nys Dep't Of Labor
107 F.3d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 1997
Co. v. … Defendants rely on two Supreme Court cases, Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 27, 103 S.Ct. at 2855-56, and Seminole Tribe of Florida v.
Cited 40 timesPublishedPatrick Cawley v. United States
272 F.2d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 23, 1959
In Ahmed v. … Consider the language, for example, of Justice Story in Reed v.
Cited 22 timesPublished112 F.4th 129 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2024
23-25 Pessin v. … See BP P.L.C. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedBalkan Nat. Ins. v. Commissioner
101 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 9, 1939
In Krausz v. … The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed.
Disapproved by Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180 (1957)Cited 7 timesPublishedUnited States ex rel. Komlos v. Trudell
35 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 21, 1929
It appears from testimony before the board of special inquiry that the relator had been refused a visa by the United States consul in Montreal. … London v. Phelps (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 288 , and United States on Petition of Albro ex rel. Graber v. Karnuth (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 242 .
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States v. Lee Peng Fei, AKA Ma Lee, AKA Char Lee
225 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 13, 2000
See United States v. Moe, 65 F.3d 245 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. … Sept.11, 1995)); United States v. Hui 83 F.3d 592 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam).
Cited 7 timesPublishedS. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
648 F.2d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 1, 1981
General Electric Company v. OSHRC, 583 F.2d 61, 64 (2d Cir. 1978); Brennan v. OSHRC and Gerosa, Inc., 491 F.2d 1340, 1344 (2d Cir. 1974). … See Accu-Namics, Inc. v. OSHRC, 515 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1975).
Cited 1 timesPublishedHumphreys v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
88 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 1, 1937
Both men were admitted to practise before the Board of Tax Appeals. … Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 , 50 S.Ct. 241 , 74 L.Ed. 731 ; Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U.S. 136 , 52 S.Ct. 345 , 76 L.Ed. 665 .
Cited 6 timesPublished77 F. App'x 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2003
Coleman v. … See Zadvydas v.
Cited 1 timesPublished457 F.2d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 1972
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). The facts are not in controversy, and there is no issue of credibility of the witnesses. … This fact cannot be viewed in isolation; the evidence must be viewed in its totality, United States v. Manning, 448 F.2d 992, 998-999 (2d Cir. 1971) (en banc).
Cited 1 timesPublishedDelaware, L. & W. R. v. Madden
241 F. 808 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 10, 1917
In Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 183 N. Y 129, 75 N. … To the same effect are Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310 , 34 Am. Rep. 536 ; Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268 , 25 N. E. 480 , 10 L. R. A. 178, 19 Am. St. Rep. 490 ; Brookville Borough v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDeitel v. La Minuette Trading Co.
37 F.2d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 6, 1930
The most significant difference is that the patentee’s case has sides strengthened by stiffening boards instead of an open frame. … International Mausoleum Co. v. Sievert (C. C. A.) 213 F. 225 ; Bayley & Sons v. Blumberg (C. C. A.) 254 F. 696 ; Dubilier Condenser Corporation v. New York Coil Co. (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 723 .
Cited 16 timesPublished
Ask Donna