Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,412 Edward Serzysko, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, 409 F.2d 1360 (2d Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,412 Edward Serzysko, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, 409 F.2d 1360 (2d Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Spoon v. Walston & Co. (mied, 1972-06-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Spoon v. Walston & Co.
E.D. Mich. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d, 409 F.2d 1360 , cert. den. 396 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 218 , 24 L.Ed.2d 180 ; Goldman v. Bank of Com *521 monwealth, 332 F.Supp. 699 (E.D.Mich. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,710 Stanley S. Pearlstein v. Scudder & German, a Partnership
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 F.Supp. 74 (SONY 1968), aff’d mem. 409 F.2d 1360 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 218 (1909) and Moscarelli v. Stamm, 288 F.Supp. 453 (EDNY 1968), both discussed supra note 9. .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. v. Killop
E.D. Mich. · 1980 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Goldman with Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d 409 F.2d 1360 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 218 , 24 L.Ed.2d 180 (1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Panayotopulas v. Chemical Bank
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d, 409 F.2d 1360 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 218 , 24 L.Ed.2d 180 (1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." National Bank of North America v. Quest
E.D.N.Y · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d mem., 409 F.2d 1360 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 218 , 24 L.Ed.2d 180 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,412 Edward Serzysko, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee
v.
The Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant
33097.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 20, 1969.
409 F.2d 1360
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

409 F.2d 1360

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,412
Edward SERZYSKO, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee,
v.
The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Nos. 531, 532, Dockets 33096, 33097.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 22, 1969.
Decided May 20, 1969.

Arthur C. Fink, New York City (Fink, Weinberger & Levin, New York City, and Walter Talmont, Hempstead, N.Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant-appellee.

A. Donald MacKinnon, New York City (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy and Adlai S. Hardin, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-respondent-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WYATT, District Judge.[1]

PER CURIAM:

1

We affirm in all respects the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York for the reason stated in the thorough and well reasoned opinion of Judge Graven reported at 290 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1968).

1

Sitting by designation