Case law

Blechman v. Ideal Health, Inc.

668 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 2009

See Frasca v. Yaw, 787 F.Supp. 327, 330 (E.D.N.Y.1992). … Blechman claims that he is entitled to remain as a member of the Board and receive an additional three percent equity interest in Ideal.

The Francesca T.

9 F. Cas. 662 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 15, 1877

See Nelson v. Phoenix Chemical Works [Case No. 10,113], decided by this court. I must therefore reject the set off. … He therefore also contradicts the witness Saxton; but he says that he thinks a bill was brought to him on board the vessel before she left, and as he could not read English he told the man to present it to the captain.

Mercado v. Senkowski

736 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 27, 1990

People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 287 , 382 N.E.2d 1149 (1978). … La Salle v. Smith, 632 F.Supp. 602, 606 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (For-man, J.) (citing Kellotat v. Cupp, 719 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.1983)).

Burke v. United States

32 F.R.D. 213 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 18, 1963

See, People of the State of California v. United States, N.D.Cal.1961, 27 F.R.D. 261 ; Brown v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., S.D.N.Y. 1955, 17 F.R.D. 324 ; Szymanski v. New York, N. H. & H. R. … Julian, D.Del.1950, 10 F.R.D. 452 ; Palensar v. Isthmian S.S. Co., S.D. N.Y.1951, 11 F.R.D. 552 ; United States v. Swift & Company, N.D.Ill.1959, 24 F.R.D. 280 . . See United States v.

In re Centrone Coal Co.

6 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 1934

Paleais v. Moore (C. C. … See, also, Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358 , 49 S. Ct. 173 , 73 L. Ed. 419 . In re Lenka (D.

Perkowski v. The Town of Brookhaven

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 9, 2023

Zinman v. Black & Decker, Inc., 983 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1993). … United States v. Brown, 606 F. Supp. 2d 306, 311-13 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).

In re Bowley & Travers, Inc.

197 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 29, 1961

Corp. v. … See Florence Trading Corporation v. Rosenberg, 2 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 557 .

Rogers v. United States

155 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 1957

In the case of Coates v. … In this connection, the Court in Cheat *411 ham v.

Wisselman v. Mount Snow, Ltd.

524 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 7, 1981

See also, Ziperman v. Frontier Hotel, 50 A.D.2d 581 , 374 N.Y.S.2d 697 (2d Dept. 1975); Meunier v. Stebo, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 590 , 328 N.Y.S.2d 608 (2d Dept. 1971); Greenberg v. R.S.P. … Thus, in Gelfand v.

The Traveller

24 F. Cas. 140 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 1872

I have had occasion heretofore to consider the effect of the language of the section referred to, in the case of an inward bound vessel boarded to the east of the Gate. … The present is the case of a vessel on the west side of the Gate, and, as said in the case referred to (Horton v.

Marciano v. Coughlin

510 F. Supp. 1034 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 1981

Dumschat v. Board of Pardons, 618 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. granted,-U.S.-, 101 S.Ct. 266 , 66 L.Ed.2d 127 (1980); Durso v. … City of Utica v. Water Pollution Control Board, 5 N.Y.2d 164, 169 , 182 N.Y.S.2d 584, 587 , 156 N.E.2d 301, 304 (1959). The language of § 855(3) quoted above provides sufficient guidance.

In Re Metlife Demutualization Litigation

689 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 12, 2010

Under the business judgment rule, the Board had broad discretion in adopting policy, strategy, and tactics. See, e.g., Clifford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. … See People v.

Martinez v. Reynolds

888 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 30, 1995

People v. … People v.

STATE OF NY BY ABRAMS v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

673 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 1987

See also Arizona v. Maricopa Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 343 , 102 S.Ct. 2466, 2472 , 73 L.Ed. 2d 48 (1982). In Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 , 38 S.Ct. 242 , 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918), Mr. … In Eiberger v.

Sabat v. Pennsylvania Railroad

157 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 6, 1958

The cases relied upon by the United States have been examined, for instance: Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. U. S., 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 490 ; Esso Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 2 Cir., 174 F.2d 182 ; Brown v. … Co. v. U. S., 7 Cir., 220 F.2d 939 .

Sackman v. Liggett Group, Inc.

189 F.R.D. 58 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 21, 1999

The issue in this now-discontinued action is whether the Intervenors — the major tobacco manufacturers in the United States, Philip Morris Incorporated, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, R.J. … Bancorp Mortgage Co. v.

Osijo v. United States

850 F. Supp. 992 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 12, 1993

See Onwubiko v. United States, 969 F.2d 1392, 1398 (2d Cir.1992). … Soviero v. United States, 967 F.2d 791, 792 (2d Cir.1992); Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 158 (2d Cir.1992) (citing cases). Further, the Court of Appeals in Mora v.

Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Samuel Kennedy and Kennedy Technology MK

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 3, 2026

Fitzpatrick of the KRF Legal Firm (“Fitzpatrick”), and Peter Brown of the firm of Peter Brown & Associates PLLC (“Brown” and together with Fitzpatrick, “Counsel”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to … Finkel v. Fraterrelli Brothers, Inc., No. 05-CV-1551 (ADS)(AKT), 2006 WL 8439497, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2006) (citing Whiting v.

Board of Trustees of the Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 26, 2023

Marvel Characters, Inc. v. … Ass’n v.

Crowell v. The Beatrice Havener

50 F. 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 1892

BROWN, District Judge. Upon the reference to the commissioner to take proof of the libelants’ damage from the collision in the above cause, it appeared that at the time of collision the libelants’ vessel, the Ethel A. … Flint v. Flemyng, 1 Barn. & Adol. 45. But in cases of tort, there is no contractual relation; no question of the construction and intent of a contract arises, but only the question of indemnity to the injured party.