United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 728 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 728 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Blake Construction v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (vaccfairfax, 2006-06-30) · Strongest negative: Devex Corporation v. General Motors Corporation (ca3, 1984-12-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Devex Corporation v. General Motors Corporation (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1984 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 146 (2d Cir.1984) (Newman, J., concurring).
discussed Cited "but see" Devex Corp. v. General Motors Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1984 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 146 (2d Cir.1984) (Newman, J., concurring).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blake Construction v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 2006 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d.842, 110 S. Ct. 1570 (1990)); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding that a court may award interest on the entire amount due “when a prior judgment consisting of both principal and accumulated interest is. not paid”); Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 359 F.2d 403, 404 (2d Cir. 1966) (awarding of interest on judgment amount plus interest accrued prior to judgment date was appropriate).”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brinn v. Tidewater Transportation District Commission
E.D. Va. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co. of North America, 987 F.2d 1017 , 1031 (4th Cir.1993) (stating that “post-judgment interest on the entire amount the court awarded ... most closely comports with the purpose of post-judgment interest articulated by the Supreme Court” in Bonjorno, 494 U.S. at 835 , 110 S.Ct. 1570 ); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that a court may award interest on the entire amount due “when a prior judgment consisting of both principal and accumulated interest is not paid”); Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 747-48 (9th Cir.1982) (granting plaintiff interest on *9…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ealy v. State (2×)
Ind. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. at 256.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cement Division, National Gypsum Co. v. City of Milwaukee
E.D. Wis. · 1996 · confidence medium
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 , 113 S.Ct. 1163 , 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993); Parsons & Whittemore Alabama Machinery and Services Corporation v. Yeargin Construction Company, Inc., 744 F.2d 1482, 1485 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142,145 (2d Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Suntip Company, United States of America v. Hampton Tree Farms, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See United States v. Southern Fabricating Co., 764 F.2d 780, 782 (11th Cir.1985) (consent judgment); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2nd Cir.1984) (default judgment).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Federal Trade Commission v. Wright (In re Wright)
Bankr. D. Conn. · 1996 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984) (citing cases).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Sec. 1961 ... provides for postjudgment interest and ... that interest should be calculated on the amount of the district court's judgment--that is $4,272,864.88 plus prejudgment interest"); Parsons & Whittemore v. Yeargin Construction Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 1482, 1485 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984); see also Palmer v. Barry, 794 F.Supp. 5, 7 (D.D.C.1992), aff'd sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert E. Quesinberry, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen S. Quesinberry, Deceased v. Life Insurance Company of North America, and Citibank Individual Banking Group Accident Plan, Robert E. Quesinberry, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen S. Quesinberry, Deceased v. Life Insurance Company of North America, and Citibank Individual Banking Group Accident Plan (2×)
4th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See Drovers Bank v. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 829 F.2d 20, 23 (8th Cir.1987) (contract interest was an element of money damages and "post-judgment interest must be awarded on the entire amount of a judgment for money damages"); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984) ("when a prior judgment consisting of both principal and accumulated interest is not paid" court should have awarded interest on the entire amount due); Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 359 F.2d 403, 404 (2d Cir.1966) (awarding interest on judgment amount plus interest accrued prior to judgment date was approp…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quesinberry v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (2×)
4th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See Drovers Bank v. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 829 F.2d 20, 23 (8th Cir.1987) (contract interest was an element of money damages and “post-judgment interest must be awarded on the entire amount of a judgment for money damages”); United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984) (“when a prior judgment consisting of both principal and accumulated interest is not paid” court should have awarded interest on the entire amount due); Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 359 F.2d 403, 404 (2d Cir.1966) (awarding interest on judgment amount plus interest accrued prior to judgment date …
cited Cited "see" United States v. American States Insurance Company
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" United States v. John Coffin
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 720 F.2d 248, 256 (2d Cir.1983) (stating that the parties must use “care and precision in framing the issues to be preserved”), modified, 728 F.2d 142 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Connaught Properties, Inc.
Bankr. D. Conn. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288 , 290-91 (9th Cir.1995); Drovers Bank of Chicago v. Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Chariton, 829 F.2d 20, 23 (8th Cir.1987); see United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1984) (a federal court judgment mby provide for in *686 terest at the statutory rate on accrued interest); cf. In re Tucknall, supra, 94 B.R. at 278 n. 1 (“That pre-judgment interest is a component of that judgment does not lead to the conclusion that interest is compounded.”) (Connecticut law).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A. (2×)
2d Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 359 F.2d 403 (2d Cir.1966) (per curiam) (holding no interest-on-interest problem existed where district court awarded interest on prior judgment amount, which in turn included prejudgment interest); see also United States v. Hannon, 728 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1984); Kotsopoulos v. Asturia Shipping Co., 467 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Olaf Peter Juda Raymond Edward Missell Anthony Burg Frans Gustaaf Van Der Hoeven and Christopher Dean Paris
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 720 F.2d 248, 260-61 (2nd Cir.1983) (“courts have agreed uniformly that stateless vessels on the high sees are, by virtue of their statelessness, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”), modified, 728 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Gsaac Gorge Pinto-Mejia, Orlando Espinosa Sanchez, Jorge Eliecer Cordoba- Lezcano, Luis Ancizar Castenad-Garjales, Luis Alfonso Barker-Michel, Carlos Osorio-Alvarez, Luis Francisco Mayorga, Jose Felix Angulo-Quinones, Roberto Nunez-Riasco, Blas Enrique Vargas-Rios, Euclidez Vello-Garcia, Defendants
82-1413.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 15, 1984.
728 F.2d 142
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

728 F.2d 142

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gsaac Gorge PINTO-MEJIA, Orlando Espinosa Sanchez, Jorge
Eliecer Cordoba- Lezcano, Luis Ancizar Castenad-Garjales,
Luis Alfonso Barker-Michel, Carlos Osorio-Alvarez, Luis
Francisco Mayorga, Jose Felix Angulo-Quinones, Roberto
Nunez-Riasco, Blas Enrique Vargas-Rios, Euclidez
Vello-Garcia, Defendants- Appellants.

Nos. 82-1412 82-1413, 82-1415 to 82-1417, 82-1422 to 82-1424.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1984.

Before KEARSE, PIERCE and JOHN W. PECK[*], Circuit Judges.

[*~142]1

ORDER ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR

REHEARING EN BANC

2

Appellant Vargas-Rios having filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc on October 28, 1983, and Appellee having filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc on November 23, 1983; and

3

The Court having given due consideration to both petitions; and USA v. Pinto-Mejia, etc., No. 84-1412, etc.

[*~143]4

The Court having noted in both petitions an apparent misinterpretation in one respect of the Court's opinion of October 14, 1983, 720 F.2d 248, it is now

ORDERED as follows:

[*~144]5

(1) In order to clarify that the opinion did not mean to imply that a defendant cannot concede, or otherwise waive his right to contest, a particular fact that is essential to the court's jurisdiction, the final sentence of part II.A. of the opinion, at 255, is modified to read as follows:

[*~145]6

Since it is a responsibility of the appellate court no less than of the trial court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the trial court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908), and since the stipulation is construed infra to preserve issues of fact and law arising from the stopping and boarding of the RICARDO as well as the seizure of marijuana, we will entertain on appeal defendants' challenge to the court's jurisdiction.

[*~146]7

(2) In all other respects the petitions for rehearing are hereby denied.

*

Of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation