Case law

United States v. Russian Volunteer Fleet

22 F.2d 187 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 1927

This is not a time charter case, such as Brown v. Turner (1912) App. … In United States v.

Pereira v. Cogan

281 B.R. 194 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2002

United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 139-40 (2d Cir.1988); Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510-11 (2d Cir.1977)). … Fiataruolo v. United States, 8 F.3d 930, 942 (2d Cir.1993); see also United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir.1994); Pagnucco v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.

Mack v. United States

653 F. Supp. 70 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 18, 1986

See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 4Ó L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Roth v. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. … Plaintiff cites two cases, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 , 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980); Brown v.

Davis Ex Rel. Cr v. Wappingers Central School

772 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 12, 2010

See Frank G. v. *510 Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 363-64 (2d Cir.2006). Parents who unilaterally place their child in an alternative placement are not held to the same standard as a school board. See M.S. v. … In Briere by & Through Brown v. Fair Haven Grade Sch. Dist., 948 F.Supp. 1242 (D.Vt.1996), relied on by plaintiffs, the court analyzed how the student progressed in her placement.

The Aleppo

1 F. Cas. 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 1874

In Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. [54 U. … It is contended, by the libellants, that Smith v. Condry, [supra,] is overruled by Williamson v.

AD/SAT v. Associated Press

920 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 29, 1996

See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571 , 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1704 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325, 82 S.Ct. at 1524; duPont, 351 U.S. at 400 , 76 S.Ct. at 1009-10 . … Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 222 , 113 S.Ct. 2578, 2587 , 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993).

Montoya v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.

79 F. Supp. 677 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 1948

Agnew v. American President Lines, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 944, 949 . Nor can plaintiff’s claim for such bonus be based on Decision No. 5, revised February 21, 1942. … Agnew v. American President Lines, supra, 73 F.Supp. at page 951 .

Wechsler v. Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, LLP

994 F. Supp. 202 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1998

opposition of the majority of Towers’ Board. … Partnership v. Horsham Corp., Civ. A. No. 12480, 1992 WL 97220 at *1 (Del.Ch.1992) (member of company board entitled to company's privileged information in discovery). 6 .

Rabbitt v. Department of the Air Force

401 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 9, 1974

In Federal Aviation Administration v. … Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U.S. 168 at 184 , 95 S.Ct. 1491, at 1500 , 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975).

Bell v. National Railroad Passenger

651 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 2, 1986

. § 153 Second as a private alternative to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and must conform to the same procedural restraints imposed on the adjustment boards. See BRAC v. St. … The Supreme Court has indicated that orders of an adjustment board can only be set aside for one or more of these three reasons. See Union Pacific Railroad v.

United States v. Ong

397 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1975

[Kotteakos v. … As was pointed out in United States v.

Meyer v. Oppenheimer Management Corp.

609 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 1984

Artvale, Inc. v. … Burks v.

United States v. Newman

534 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 1982

Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365-6 , 101 S.Ct. 665, 668-69 , 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981), United States v. Brown, 602 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir. 1979), and United States v. … In Board of Education v.

Garretto v. Cooperman

510 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 6, 1981

The issue is whether plaintiff comes within the scope of two recent Supreme Court opinions, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 , 96 S.Ct. 2673 , 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), and Branti v. … Board review is generally based on the record before the Referee although the Board has the power to hear evidence de novo.

Hi Pockets, Inc. v. Music Conservatory of Westchester, Inc.

192 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 28, 2002

See Local Rule 56.1(c); see also Gubitosi v. … the Board, de *154 fendant fully participated in the hearing before the Board and defendant never sought appellate review of the determination).

Chu Chung v. New Silver Palace Restaurant, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2002

Reich v. … See Mack v.

Bruzzone v. Hampton

433 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1977

In Melvin v. … See Van Teslaar v.

Herschel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

216 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 1963

In Scot Typewriter Co. v. … The third circuit in Kelly v.

T & A'S, INC. v. Town Bd. of Town of Ramapo

109 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 2000

Planning Board Discretion Article XI of the Code sets forth the procedure for obtaining conditional use approval from the Ramapo Planning Board. … Shuttlesworth v.

Peders v. Hartford Fire Ins.

49 F.2d 927 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1931

Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Queens County Trust Co., 226 N. Y. 225, 233 , 123 N. E. 370 . What he knew, the company knew. … McCelland v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 217 N. Y. 336 , 111 N. E. 1062 ; Satz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 243 N. Y. 385, 390 , 153 N. E. 844 , 59 A. L. R. 606.