green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
O'HOPP v. ContiFinancial Corp.
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 747, 751 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (“an even or inconclusively tilted ‘balance of convenience’ would ordinarily support application of the first-filed rule”), aff'd mem., 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1978).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re the Arbitration Between Griffin Industries, Inc. & Ocean Logistics Corp. & Petrojam, Ltd.
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1978); Capitol Records,. 810 F.Supp. at 1354 .
cited
Cited "see"
Recoton Corp. v. Allsop, Inc.
See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742 *577 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1978); Capitol Records, 810 F.Supp. at 1354 .
cited
Cited "see"
Riviera Trading Corp. v. Oakley, Inc.
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1978); Capitol Records, 810 F.Supp. at 1354 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hanson PLC v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 747-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (although circumstances did not indicate forum shopping where there were substantial ties to New York, court allowed second-filed action to proceed because it was filed only six days after first action and first action was filed in response to settlement demand), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1978); accord Capitol Records, Inc. v. Optical Recording Corp., 810 F.Supp. 1350, 1354-55 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (factors weighing in favor of allowing second-filed action to proceed include: judicial economy, policy in favo…
cited
Cited "see"
Agency Rent a Car System, Inc. v. Grand Rent a Car Corp.
See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y.) (Lasker, J.), aff'd 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977), and Beacon Enter., Inc. v. Menzies, 715 F.2d 757 (2d Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (U.S.A.)
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 746-47 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff’d mem., 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1978). 23 .
cited
Cited "see"
Gemco Latinoamerica, Inc. v. Seiko Time Corp.
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff’d. 573 F.2d 1288 (2nd Cir.1978).
cited
Cited "see"
In re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation"
See Chesa International Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 573 F.2d 1288 . (2d Cir.1977). .
cited
Cited "see"
Reed v. Rhodes
See Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 238 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Vic Kirsch Construction Co.
See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff’d without opinion, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Agency Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Grand Rent A Car Corp.
It is true that in Beacon Enterprises we expressed doubt whether long-arm jurisdiction should be asserted in defensive declaratory judgment actions where plaintiffs are seeking only a determination of "no liability." 715 F.2d at 764-65 (defensive declaratory judgment actions are not the types of cases that the New York courts have regularly linked to Section 302(a)(1)); see also Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 749-50 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (New York's long-arm statute should not be interpreted to cover defensive declaratory judgment actions), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Agency Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Grand Rent A Car Corp.
It is true that in Beacon Enterprises we expressed doubt whether long-arm jurisdiction should be asserted in defensive declaratory judgment actions where plaintiffs are seeking only a determination of “no liability.” 715 F.2d at 764-65 (defensive declaratory judgment actions are not the types of cases that the New York courts have regularly linked to Section 302(a)(1)); see also Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 749-50 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (New York’s long-arm statute should not be interpreted to cover defensive declaratory judgment actions), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Union Carbide Corp. v. Montell N.V.
Therefore, “applicability of [the equitable tolling] doctrine cannot extend the limitations period beyond the two years prescribed by the statute.” Glynwill, 1995 WL 362500 , at *4; see also Cestaro v. Mackell, 429 F.Supp. 465, 468-69 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Turner & Newall, Plc
See, e.g., Chesa Int'l, Ltd. v. Fashion Assocs., Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977); Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (in trade secrets action, certain documents made available on a "counsel only" basis). 27 In the case of the attorney-client privilege, however, a litigant claiming the privilege would probably prefer almost anyone other than adversary counsel to review the documents in question.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Turner & Newall, PLC
See, e.g., Chesa Int’l, Ltd. v. Fashion Assocs., Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1977); Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (in trade secrets action, certain documents made available on a “counsel only” basis).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conopco, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co.
See also Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (Fed.Cir.1977) (defendant failed to produce cost data and failed to keep accurate records of total sales of infringing merchandise; court held that any doubts against actual assessment of damage must be resolved against defendant); Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp., 765 F.2d 966 (2d Cir. 1985). 107.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas
Pictures, Inc., 176 F.2d 145, 150 (2nd Cir.1949); see also Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 747 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2nd Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Quadrozzi v. City of New York
See, e.g., Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977) (names of customers are proper matter for discovery under protective order for which it is plaintiffs’ obligation to move).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Moll v. U.S. Life Title Insurance Co. of New York
See e.g., Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977) (customer lists disclosed only to opposing counsel).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Aloha Leasing v. Craig Germain Co.
See, e.g., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 746 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff 'd, 573 F.2d 1288 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp.
See also Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 238 (S.D.N.Y.) ("well-known and ancient doctrine" states that doubts about actual damages will be resolved against party who evades ascertainment of actual damages), aff'd mem. 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977). 34 Moreover, the district court's conclusion is also supported by the language of section 1117: "In assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed." Plaintiffs here proved defendants' sales, using defendants' own w…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp.
See also Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 238 (S.D.N.Y.) (“well-known and ancient doctrine” states that doubts about actual damages will be resolved against party who evades ascertainment of actual damages), aff'd mem. 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Patent Development Corp. v. American Hospital Supply Corp.
Co. v. Cablewave, Ltd., 412 F.Supp. 204, 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (Frankel, L), and that "service of process” is at least a fact of “slight relevancy,” Brierwood Shoe Corp. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 479 F.Supp. 563, 568 (S.D.N.Y.1979); see also Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Schneider, 435 F.Supp. 742, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (doubts concerning lack of personal jurisdiction in first filed action require stay of that action), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1978) (mem.). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. United Transportation Union Local No. 81
See, e.g., Cestaro v. Mackell, 429 F.Supp. 465, 467 (E.D.N.Y.), aff ’d, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stillman v. Vassileff
See e.g., Chesa International Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1977); Wright & Miller, supra, at 305.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Coriou
v.
State of New York Drug Abuse Control Commission
v.
State of New York Drug Abuse Control Commission
77-7236.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 30, 1978.
573 F.2d 1288
Published
Coriou
v.
State of New York Drug Abuse Control Commission
No. 77-7236
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
1/30/78
1
S.D.N.Y.
DISMISSED