Case law

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Plant

76 F.2d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 1935

A. 368, the Board of Tax Appeals held income employed in similar expenditures taxable against the trustee rather than the beneficiary. … We think that ruling was right, and was properly followed by the Board in the present proceeding. As we have pointed out in discussing Burnet v. Wells, 289 U. S. 670 , 53 S. Ct. 761 , 77 L.

GEICO v. Mayzenberg

121 F.4th 404 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 12, 2024

22-2537 GEICO v. … See King v.

Carpenter v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co.

286 F. 355 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 1922

(The difference between claimants and interveners is set forth by Brown, J., in The Two Marys [D. C.] 12 Fed. 152 .) … The Dunlap, supra; Calumet, etc., v. Equitable, etc. (D. C.) 275 Fed. 552 . It is possession and not even holding the record title that changes the mortgagee’s status (Morgan v. Shinn, 15 Wall. 105 , 21 L.

List v. Fashion Park, Inc.

340 F.2d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1965

Kohler v. … Compare Strong v. Repide, supra; Speed v. Transamerica Corp., supra; Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., supra. Affirmed. .

Drowne v. Great Lakes Transit Corporation

5 F.2d 58 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 1925

The appellant’s shipkeeper was on board. … Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 475 , 24 L. Ed. 256 ; Fitzwater v. Warren, 206 N. Y. 355 , 99 N. E. 1042 , 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1229; Rooney v. Brogan Constr. Co., 194 N. Y. 32 , 86 N. E. 814 .

In re Weideman

327 F. App'x 215 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2009

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board Grievance Administrator, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v Carl M. … A eonclusory recitation of alleged error is insufficient to trigger this Board’s review. See Grievance Administrator v. Frederick A. Potman, 93-47-GA; 94-157-GA (ADB 1997), citing Mitcham v.

Gao v. Barr

968 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 2020

18-358 Gao v. … A dissenting Board member thought Gao should have been afforded an opportunity for explanation because the identified discrepancies were not “glaring or dramatic.” Admin. R. at 4; see Ming Shi Xue v.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,770 United States of America v. Sidney Stein

544 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 1976

Brown, 479 F.2d 1170, 1172 (2d Cir. 1973). … Earlier, in United States v.

Charles Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana Ss "Campeche"

639 F.2d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 5, 1981

Farrell Lines, Inc., supra, 613 F.2d at 432; Riddle v. Exxon Transportation Co., 563 F.2d 1103, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1977); Brown v. Mitsubishi Shintaku Ginko, 550 F.2d 331, 333-34 (5th Cir. 1977). … See also Brown v. Ivarans Rederi A/S, 545 F.2d 854, 860 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1652 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977); Lucas v. “Brinknes” Schiffahrts Ges., 379 F.Supp. 759, 768 (E.D. Pa.1974).

De Oliveira v. Gonzales

150 F. App'x 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 2005

Petitioner Edwilson Fernandes De Oliveira (“De Oliveira”), a native of Brazil, petitions for review of a January 16, 2004 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) affirming an immigration judge’s denial … Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 , 93 (2d Cir.2001).

In re Weideman

327 F. App'x 215 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2009

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board Grievance Administrator, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v Carl M. … A eonclusory recitation of alleged error is insufficient to trigger this Board’s review. See Grievance Administrator v. Frederick A. Potman, 93-47-GA; 94-157-GA (ADB 1997), citing Mitcham v.

Pughe v. United States

4 F. App'x 65 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 16, 2001

Brown, 470 F.2d 285, 288 (2d Cir.1972) (court twice used improper sentencing procedure), reassignment to another judge may be advisable in order to avoid ‘an exercise in futility [in which] the Court is merely marching up … the hill only to march right down again,’ United States v.

Reed v. Wiser

555 F.2d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1977

Burbank & Co., 525 F.2d 9, 12-14 (2d Cir. 1975); Board of County Commissioners v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S.A., 307 F.2d 802 , 806-07 (5th Cir. 1962). … Co. v.

Mildred A. McLearn v. Cowen & Co. And Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Incorporated

660 F.2d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 28, 1981

In Green v. … In Olegario v.

Marx v. Chase Nat. Bank

117 F.2d 800 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 24, 1941

of directors or any committee of the board, mentioning Clarke for the years 1928 through 1931. … Pressed Steel Car Company v. Union Pacific R. Co., D.C.,S.D.N.Y., 241 F. 964, 966 .

United States v. Osama Awadallah

349 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 7, 2003

United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019, 1027 (2d Cir.1997) (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 ); see also United States v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 447-48 (2d Cir.1990). … ."); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (same); Brown v. Doe, 2 F.3d 1236, 1243 (2d Cir.1993).

Skolar v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.

60 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 1932

Co. v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130, 138 , 49 S. Ct. 75, 77 , 73 L. … Co. v. Smith, 255 F. 846 (C. C. A. 2); Yaconi v. Brady & Gioe, Inc., 246 N. Y. 300, 306 , 158 N. E. 876 . The facts being undisputed, there was no issue for the jury as to assumption of risk.

U.S. Bio-Genics Corp. v. Robert K. Christenberry, Postmaster, New York, N.Y.

278 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 1960

BIO-GENICS CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert K. CHRISTENBERRY, Postmaster, New York, N.Y., Defendant-Appellee. No. 187, Docket 25780. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued Feb. 5, 1960. … to decide his case, even though either Smith or Brown would concededly do a better job of it than Jones.

Joseph Michael Dentico v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

303 F.2d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 9, 1962

Dentico v. Esperdy, 280 F.2d 71 (2 Cir. 1960). Two other points are now urged. … One is that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in refusing to reopen the deportation hearing on the basis of affidavits relating to his father’s alleged United States citizenship; the evidence was a long way from being

George Latus, Libellant-Appellant v. United States of America, and Todd Shipyards Corp., Respondent-Impleaded-Appellee

277 F.2d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 11, 1960

The fact that in the case at bar the master and some of the other officers were on board to inspect the progress of the work was immaterial. That was also true in West v. … Although we recognize that a shipowner in possession owes the personal duty of reasonable care to all who may lawfully come on board, Kermarec v.