Case law

Rivoli Trucking Corp. v. New York Shipping Ass'n

167 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 1956

Primary proceedings charging a defendant, who is subject to the Shipping Act, with a violation of the Shipping Act must be brought before the Federal Maritime Board. United States Navigation Co. v. … American Union Transport, Inc. v. River Plate & Brazil Conferences, supra.

Pollnow v. Glennon

594 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1984

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574 , 95 S.Ct. 729, 736 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1974). … See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 565 [ 98 S.Ct. 855, 861 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 ] (1978); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. [308] at 322 [ 95 S.Ct. 992 at 1001 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975)].

Matthew v. United States

452 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2006

Brown, 348 U.S. at 110-11 , 75 S.Ct. 141 . The Supreme Court noted that Feres did not overrule Brooks v. … Brown v. United States, No. 04-5171, 2006 WL 2571119 (6th Cir. Sept.8, 2006).

System Federation No. 152, Railway Employees' Department v. Penn Central Co.

307 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 1970

Even prior to the 1966 amendments, the courts have intervened in Board Affairs when purely procedural problems stalemated Board action. Cf. Order of Railway Conductors of America v. … Trainman v. Swan, 214 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1954); System Federation, No. 30, Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Braidwood, 284 F.Supp. 611, 614-617 (N.D.Ill.1968).

Pickthall v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co.

73 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 3, 1947

Thus reference is made to the cases (Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 205 U.S. 530 , 27 S.Ct. 595 , 51 L.Ed. 916 ; Trizna v. New York, C. & St. L. R. … See also Michigan Lubricator Co. v. Ontario Cartridge Co., 6 Cir., 275 F. 902 . In Conley v.

Obabueki v. International Business MacHines Corp.

145 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2001

Bryant v. … (Pl. 56.1 Choicepoint V 43; Choicepoint 56.1 Resp. ¶ 43.) 13 . The parlies disagree as to whether Brown told plaintiff that IBM “was withdrawing” the offer or that IBM merely "intended” to do so.

Allen v. Hallet

1 F. Cas. 472 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 1849

Butler v. McLelland, [Case No. 2,242.] The libel, therefore, as to him, must be dismissed with costs. … IShermond [Sherwood] v. McIntosh, [Id. 12,-778;] Mitchell v. The Rogambo, [Orozimbo,] [id. 9,067;] The Mentor, [Id. 9,428.]

Bleecker Associates v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

544 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 1982

As held by the Court in Ray v. … Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, 295 U.S. 56, 60 , 55 S.Ct. 555, 556 , 79 L.Ed. 1298 (1935); Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 , 54 S.Ct. 231 , 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934); Block v.

Otis Elevator Co. v. United Technologies Corp.

405 F. Supp. 960 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 29, 1975

Columbia Pictures Indus, v. … Hamilton Watch Co. v.

McNill v. New York City Department of Correction

950 F. Supp. 564 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 1996

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Narumanchi v. Board of Trustees, supra, 850 F.2d at 72.

In Re Richmond Children's Center, Inc.

49 B.R. 262 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1985

Allen (In re Board of Education), 29 A.D.2d 24, 26 , 285 N.Y. S.2d 487, 489 (3rd Dep’t 1967); Board of Education v. City of New York, 110 Misc.2d 898, 901 , 443 N.Y.S.2d 133, 135 (Sup.Ct.1981). … See Cherno v. Dutch American Mercantile Corp., 353 F.2d 147, 153 (2d Cir.1965); Gilbert v. Meyer, 362 F.Supp. 168, 173 (S.D.N.Y.1973); In re Anjopa Paper & Board Mfg. Co., 269 F.Supp. 241, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); Sharp v.

Monjar v. Higgins

39 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 1941

Co. v. … Plaintiff elected to file an appeal from the assessment for that year with the Board of Tax Appeals and that operated to give that board exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy involved. Tait v. Western Maryland Ry.

Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co. v. Perkins

6 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 1933

Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290 , 43 S. Ct. 353 , 67 L. Ed. 659 . Proceedings by the Board ending in an award are judicial under the law of that state. … American Creosote Works v. Powell, 298 F. 417, 422 (C. C. A. 5); Dixon v. Hopkins, 56 F.(2d) 783 (C. C. A. 5); Rankin v. Miller (C. C.) 130 F. 229 ; Snyder v. DeForest Wireless Tel. Co. (C.

Williams v. Salvation Army

108 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2000

See, e.g., Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 , 104 S.Ct. 1723, n. 1 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Sherlock v. Montefiore Medical Center, 84 F.3d 522, 525-26 (2d Cir.1996). … ("At the first Worker’s Compensation Board proceeding ... the board found that plaintiff was not eligible for paid leave ... [pjlaintiff should therefore not be allowed to now argue that he was disabled.”)

Levin v. Mississippi River Corporation

289 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 1968

the 15 members of Mopac’s board are joined herein as parties defendant. … Thus, the court’s decree will not be “effective” unless a quorum of the board of directors are parties defendant. Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 164 F.2d at 957 .

United States ex rel. Shiffman v. Commanding Officer, Armed Forces Examining & Entrance Station

301 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 1969

See, e. g., Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Mankiewicz v. Ray, 399 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1968). Thus, in Smith v. … Shiffman v. Selective Service Local Board No. 5, 391 U.S. 930 , 88 S.Ct. 1831 , 20 L.Ed.2d 849 (1968). .

In re Facebook, Inc.

922 F. Supp. 2d 445 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 13, 2013

a demand upon the board would be futile. … on the Board....”

Litwin v. Oceanfreight, Inc.

865 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 2011

Barkan v. … Under the applicable test, the Board must first demonstrate that it “had reasonable grounds for believing a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed.... ” Unocal Corp. v.

Antonious v. Muhammad

873 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1995

Plaintiffs argue that Brown v. Bullock, 17 A.D.2d 424 , 235 N.Y.S.2d 837 (1962) compels a different result. … See Petrella v. Siegel, 843 F.2d 87 , 90 (2d Cir.1988); Brown v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 602 F.Supp. 549, 551 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N.Y. 386, 392-93 , 18 N.E. 123 (1888); Samhammer v.

United States v. Olin Ski Co., Inc.

503 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 25, 1980

United States v. J. B. Williams Co., 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974), quoted in United States v. Ancorp National Services, Inc., 516 F.2d 198, 201 (2d Cir. 1975). … While the facts of this case are similar to those in Browning , there are crucial differences.