Case law

Ritz Cycle Car Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Ordnance Corp.

237 F. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 6, 1916

But see Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 206 Fed. 611 , 124 C. C. A. 409 . Complainant’s profits would ordinarily (not be the true measure of damages for infringement o'f trade-mark rights. … Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.) page 437; Browne on Trade-Marks (2d Ed.) page 506.

United States v. Burger

717 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 20, 1989

Graham, 309 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.1962) (whether Board was liable under § 6672 depended on whether it controlled the payment of the corporation’s tax debt); see also Simpson v. … United States, 504 F.2d 1306 (1st Cir.1974) (responsible person was majority shareholder, president, and treasurer); Brown v.

United States v. Samet

207 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2002

Board of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 , 114 S.Ct. 2481 , 129 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994); Attorney General v. Grumet, 510 U.S. 1107 , 114 S.Ct. 1046 , 127 L.Ed.2d 369 (1994); Board of Educ. v. … Grumet, 510 U.S. 989 , 114 S.Ct. 544 , 126 L.Ed.2d 446 (1993); Board of Educ. v. Gru-met, 509 U.S. 938 , 114 S.Ct. 10 , 125 L.Ed.2d 762 (1993).

Mattina v. Ardsley Bus Corp.

711 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 2010

See Silverman v. J.R.L. Food Corp., 196 F.3d 334, 337 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that the district court had granted the Board’s motion to decide the Petition on the basis of the record of the administrative proceeding). … (alterations in original) (quoting Kaynard v. Palby Lingerie, Inc., 625 F.2d 1047, 1051 (2d Cir.1980)). See also Mattina ex rel. N.L.R.B. v.

United States v. Desist

277 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 30, 1967

Brown. … In Granello v.

Browning v. Peyton

123 F.R.D. 75 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1988

Inc. v. … Browning contends that under the Second Circuit’s decision in City of Detroit v.

Petersen v. Federated Development Co.

416 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 1976

Zdanok v. … v.

United Fruit Co. v. Cardillo

104 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 1952

O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 , 71 S.Ct. 470 , 95 L.Ed. 483 ; Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Company, 330 U.S. 469 , 67 S.Ct. 801 , 91 L.Ed. 1028 ; Parker, Deputy Commissioner v. … Norton, supra; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, 66 App.D.C. 160 , 85 F.2d 417, 420 . . Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 9, 13 , 65 S.Ct. 478 , 89 L.Ed. 661 ; United States v.

Gregory v. Royal Typewriter Co.

33 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 19, 1940

The Board of Appeals affirmed that ruling and an appeal has been taken to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals so that as to these two claims the usual presumption of validity is .absent, In re Gregory, Pat. … In addition the British patent to Brown (No. 203,815, September 20, 1923) shows an oscillating electricmotor which is essentially like that of the plaintiffs, and in the specifications the adaptability of the device to advertising

Spaulding v. Parry Navigation Co.

90 F. Supp. 564 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 3, 1950

Bohn v. American Export Lines, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1941, 42 F.Supp. 228 ; Kravas v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C.W.D.Pa. 1939, 28 F.Supp. 66 ; Brown v. … Answer: Yes. (2) If the answer to (1) is “yes”, was it the general practice at the Port of New ■York in August 1947 for ship repair companies to provide a ladder or gangway for the ship’s crew to board and leave their vessel

Copeland v. Rosen

208 F.R.D. 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 2002

Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir.1982) (quoting Theilmann v. … Izquier-do v.

Brown v. The Gente that have an unusual advantage of Tele

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2022

BROWN, MPA/PHD {2020}; COCO III; ZAZA, Plaintiffs, -against … Coppedge v.

De Farconnet v. Western Ins. Co.

110 F. 405 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1901

BROWN, District Judge. … Thompson v. Insurance Co., 136 U. S. 299 , 10 Sup. Ct. 1019, 34 L. Ed. 408 ; Titus v. Insurance Co., 81 N. Y. 410 ; Roby v. Insurance Co., 120 N. Y. 510 , 24 N. E. 808 ; Weed v. Insurance Co., 133 N.

United States Lines Co. v. Eastburn Marine Chemical Co.

221 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 1963

Connell v. Vermilya-Brown Co., *884 Inc., 73 F.Supp. 860 (S.D.N.Y.1946). Residence in the Philippine Islands was held not to be residence “within the United States” for naturalization purposes. United States v. … When, therefore, one who is in the United States boards an American vessel, and remains on board of her until her return to her home port, he cannot be classed as an alien immigrant ‘coming from’ any other country, no matter

In Re BP P.L.C. Derivative Litigation

507 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 23, 2007

.”); Edgar v. … .”); Auten v.

Tuff-N-Rumble Management, Inc. v. Sugarhill Music Publishing Inc.

49 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 24, 1999

McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 , 56 S.Ct. 780 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); see also Board of Educ. of the Mount Sinai Union Free Sch. Dist. v. … Sugarhill avers that it received its assignment of the copyright to the Composition and the Master from Peter Brown on June 9, 1980. Tuff received its assignment from Peter Brown on June 27, 1988.

Brown v. The Gente that have an unusual advantage of Tele

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2022

Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Plaintiffs submitted the complaint without the filing fees. … Plaintiff Brown is the only plaintiff who submitted an IFP application, but that application is blank and therefore fails to establish that Brown is unable to pay the filing fees.

Lew Thun v. McGrath

16 F.R.D. 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 5, 1954

See Secretary of the Interior v. McGarrahan, 1870, 9 Wall. 298, 313 , 19 L.Ed. 579 ; United States v. Boutwell, 1873, 17 Wall. 604, 607, 608 , 21 L.Ed. 721 ; Warner Valley Stock Co. v. … Acheson v. Fujiko Furusho, 9 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 284 .

Gilliam v. New York State Board of Law Examiners

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 19, 2024

The Second Circuit has “expressly decided this issue” by holding that “[t]he Board of Law Examiners, as an arm of the State of New York, shares in Eleventh Amendment immunity.” T.W. v. New York State Bd. of L. … Ciparick, who serves as the chair of the Board, shares in the Board’s Eleventh Amendment immunity—to the extent that she is sued in her official capacity—as a state agent.’ See Asensio v.

CINE 42ND ST. THEATER v. Nederlander Org.

609 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1985

Mar. 27, 1985), the starting point for any analysis of the state action doctrine is Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). … City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 391 , 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1125 , 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978)(citing Parker v. Brown). See also Community Communications Co. v.