green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shafii v. PLC British Airways
In DElia, after reviewing the plaintiffs claim of a denial of due process during his NRAB hearing, we affirmed the district court’s ruling that plaintiff was not denied due process: “D’Elia’s conelusory allegations as to a denial of due process are wholly insufficient to resist the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” 338 F.2d at 702.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shafii v. Plc British Airways
In D'Elia, after reviewing the plaintiff's claim of a denial of due process during his NRAB hearing, we affirmed the district court's ruling that plaintiff was not denied due process: "D'Elia's conclusory allegations as to a denial of due process are wholly insufficient to resist the defendants' motion for summary judgment." 338 F.2d at 702. 17 Subsequent confusion on this issue was engendered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union Pacific Railroad v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 , 99 S.Ct. 399 , 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int.
As long as the final hearing officer was impartial the requirements of due process were satisfied. 338 F.2d at 702.
cited
Cited "see"
Rex v. Martinez
See D’Elia v. N.Y., New 18 Haven & Hartford R.R., 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir. 1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Fiala
See D’Elia v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R., 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir.1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Rex v. Martinez
See D’Elia v. N.Y., New 18 Haven & Hartford R.R., 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir. 1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Rex v. Martinez
See D’Elia v. N.Y., New 18 Haven & Hartford R.R., 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir. 1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Bell v. National Railroad Passenger
See D’Elia v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir.1964) (per curiam), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 978 , 85 S.Ct. 1340 , 14 L.Ed.2d 272 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Metro North Railroad
Mar. 7, 1994) (same); see also D’Elia v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R., 338 F.2d 701 , 702 (2d Cir. 1964) (explaining, arguably in dicta, that the plaintiff was “entitled to a completely impartial hearing only when the case reached the referee designated to sit with the Board”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Arroyo v. Crown Air/Dorado Wings
See also D’Elia v. New York New Haven and Hartford Railway Co., 230 F.Supp. 912 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 338 F.2d 701 (2d Cir.1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ana Guerrero GARRIDO, Appellant,
v.
Paul BORDALLO and Audrey Bordallo, Appellees
v.
Paul BORDALLO and Audrey Bordallo, Appellees
19104.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 16, 1964.
338 F.2d 701
Finton J. Phelan, Jr., Agana, Guam, Alvin Buchignani, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Gerald F. Ellersdorfer, Arriola, Bohn & Gayle, Benicia, Cal., for appellees.
Chambers, Browning, Duniway.
Published
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Appellant made a challenge in the trial court to the jury panel. As framed and as timed there, we cannot sustain it.
We have considered all specifications of error, but do not agree with them.