Case law

Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook

405 F.2d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 29, 1968

While the purchaser in the Aquitaine transaction had three representatives on Banff’s board of directors and was Banff’s controlling shareholder, the Aquitaine representatives on the Banff board abstained from the authorization … It is recognized that in many circumstances the knowledge of some of the members of the board of directors is not by itself sufficient to charge the corporation with knowledge. Ruckle v.

United States v. Andimo Pappadio

346 F.2d 5 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 24, 1965

We have held that this Court has power to reduce the period of imprisonment meted out for a contempt of court, see United States v. Levine, 2 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 272 , applying the unambiguous mandate of Brown v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Adolph Hirsch & Co.

30 F.2d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 4, 1929

This result was reversed by the Board of Tax Appeals, which held there was affiliation and determined the deficiency to be $2,364.01. This difference is the amount of tax involved on this appeal. … Montana Mercantile Co. v. Rasmusson (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 916 ; Alameda Inv. Co. v. McLaughlin (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 81 ; Appeal of Gould Coupler Co., 5 B. T. A. 515.

Cristina Peters v. Baldwin Union Free School District

320 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 2003

320 F.3d 164 Cristina PETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Board of Education, Baldwin Union Free School District, Jeffrey L. … See Ashker v.

Bull v. New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co.

167 F. 792 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 12, 1909

Evidently anticipating that the ship’s tackle would be insufficient for the task of handling these unusual weights, the charterers ha,d the vessel call at San Juan, Porto IIico, for the sole purpose of taking on board extra … The trial judge, who decided the case orally at the close of the testimony, evidently was of this opinion, but felt that he was constrained by a former decision of this court in the case of The Acanthus (Worrall v.

Brady v. Town of Colchester

863 F.2d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 1, 1988

See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2708-09 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); G.T. Scott v. … See Marmah, Inc. v. Greenwich, 176 Conn. 116, 121 , 405 A.2d 63 (1978); Graham Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 140 Conn. 1, 4-5 , 97 A.2d 564 (1953).

Medley v. Garland

71 F.4th 35 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 15, 2023

20-3079 Medley v. … v.

Gjondrekaj v. Mukasey

269 F. App'x 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 14, 2008

Ping Chen v. United States Attorney Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir.2007) (observing that motion to reissue is treated as motion to reopen); see also Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir.2005); Iavorski v. … to demonstrate that such conduct related to proceedings “before the Board.”

Espindola-Castena v. Holder

353 F. App'x 525 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

See Kulhawik v. Holder, 571 F.3d 296, 298 (2d Cir.2009). … See Elbahja v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir.2007).

Espindola-Castena v. Holder

353 F. App'x 525 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

See Kulhawik v. Holder, 571 F.3d 296, 298 (2d Cir.2009). … See Elbahja v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir.2007).

Efimova v. Mukasey

292 F. App'x 118 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 10, 2008

See also Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 38 (2d Cir.2008); De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). … For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is hereby DISMISSED.

Trunz Pork Stores, Inc. v. Rasquin

100 F.2d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 5, 1938

Decisions of the Board are subject to review by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals or the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. … Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337 , 57 S.Ct. 816 , 81 L.Ed. 1143 . Judgment was entered here on a motion made upon the pleadings to dismiss the bill.

Walsh v. Segale

70 F.2d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 30, 1934

Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489 , 23 L. Ed. 374 ; Brown v. Evans, 17 F. 912 (C. C. Nev.), 109 U. S. 180 , 3 S. Ct. 83 , 27 L. Ed. 898 ; Hudson v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 391 ; Dreimuller v. Rogow, 93 N. J. … Bierbach v. Goodyear Rubber Co. (C. C.) 14 F. 826 .

Schiebel v. Schoharie Cent. Sch. Dist.

120 F.4th 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2024

Hayut v. … Id. at 10 (¶ 34) (Board Policy 7551).

Garcia Carrera v. Garland

117 F.4th 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 2024

22-6319-ag Garcia Carrera v. … The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Garcia Carrera’s application.

United States v. Santopietro

996 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 1993

Stinson v. … United States v.

Local 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Brink's Inc.

744 F.2d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 5, 1984

Those charges are still pending before the Board. … Warrensburg Board and Paper Corp., 340 F.2d 920, 924 (2d Cir.1965); see also Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees v.

Iwachiw v. Nassau

318 F. App'x 8 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 26, 2009

of Education (the “Board”). … Iwachiw v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 194 F.Supp.2d 194, 207-08 (E.D.N.Y.2002).

Milton Silverman v. United States

556 F.2d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 31, 1977

Meyers v. United States, 446 F.2d 37 (2nd Cir., 1971). … Nothing raised by the written petition required exploration viva voce, United States v. Franzese, 525 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir., 1975). Cf. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 20 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1962).

United States v. Woodard

64 F. App'x 290 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 12, 2003

United States v. Brown, 699 F.2d 585, 593 (2d Cir.1983). In fact, “an in-court identification without [any] prior line-up or hearing [does not] necessarily violate a defendant’s rights.” Id. at 593-94 . … United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 942 (2d Cir.1984). See Brown, 699 F.2d at 594 (stating that ideal practice involves use of either a line-up “or an appropriate protective procedure”).