John P. Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., a P'ship Enter., John P. Cahill v. Robert Chambers, J. Kevin Murphy, Joseph F. Carlino, James E. Healey, Marc C. Gillen & John Does 1-5, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
John P. Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., a P'ship Enter., John P. Cahill v. Robert Chambers, J. Kevin Murphy, Joseph F. Carlino, James E. Healey, Marc C. Gillen & John Does 1-5, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 · 2 courts · …a judgment for a in an action brought against him by c is res judicata as to b's vicarious liability to c ⚠ not in text
41 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Citibank, N.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Data Lease Financial Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Miami National Bank, Third-Party (ca3, 1990-07-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Citibank, N.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Data Lease Financial Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Miami National Bank, Third-Party
3rd Cir. · 1990 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a judgment for a in an action brought against him by c is res judicata as to b's vicarious liability to c
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp.
11th Cir. · 1990 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a judgment for a in an action brought against him by c is res judicata as to b's vicarious liability to c
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MacNaughton v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC
2d Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Specifically, she alleges that Young Living 9 “misrepresent[ed] the Products as ‘therapeutic’ and having physical, health and/or 10 medicinal benefits and omitt[ed] material facts.” Joint App’x 45. 11 One of the primary objectives of Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement is to 12 ensure that defendants receive “fair notice of [a] plaintiff’s claim, to enable 13 preparation of [a] defense[.]” DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., Inc., 822 F.2d 14 1242, 1247 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: John Emil Alle
C.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Miller, 822 F.2d 14 at 832 (prohibiting lower courts from reviewing issues on remand that were implicitly 15 decided on appeal). 16 Because the bankruptcy court could only require those issues not disposed of by 17 the BAP Appeal Judgment to be proven at trial, the bankruptcy court did not err when 18 it denied Alle’s Mandate Relief Motion.
discussed Cited "see" Rupert v. Krautheimer (In Re Krautheimer)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1129 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1987); Nemaizer, 793 F.2d at 63 (holding that a movant must show “extraordinary circumstances justifying relief’ or “extreme and undue hardship”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rossi v. Stevens
2d Cir. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1128-29 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff 'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar
W.D.N.Y. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987) (decree of settlement constitutes judgment on the merits, and wilbbe given full res judicata, effect in subsequent suit between same parties on same causes of action as those compromised in settlement).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sheerbonnet, Ltd. v. American Express Bank, Ltd.
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115 , 1120 *417 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff’d, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sheerbonnet, Ltd. v. American Express Bank, Ltd.
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gotham Print, Inc. v. American Speedy Printing Centers, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1125-1126 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987) (“Because plaintiffs first cause of action fails to state a claim for relief for securities fraud, the plaintiff cannot rely on this claim to establish the predicate acts necessary to sustain his third cause of action under RICO.”); Dumbarton Condominium Association v. 3120 R Street Associates Limited Partnership, 657 F.Supp. 226, 232 (D.D.C.1987) (where the court held that because the contracts entered into between the parties were not “investment contracts” subject …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Othar Russell v. Sunamerica Securities, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 145 ; see also Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1502 (11th Cir.) (finding privity for purposes of res judicata between principal and agent), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 167 , 116 L.Ed.2d 131 (1991); Mandarino v. Pollard, 718 F.2d 845, 850 (7th Cir.1983) (finding privity for res judicata purposes between corporation and its officers and directors); see also Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1122 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Russell v. SunAmerica Securities, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See id.; see also Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (holding that scope of release which formed basis of consent judgment is irrelevant where defendant in second action was in privity with defendants in earlier action), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carlin v. Gold Hawk Joint Venture
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
For the purposes of res judicata, the doctrine of privity “is to be applied with flexibility.” Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. NL Industries, Inc., 825 F.2d 634, 640 (2d Cir.1987); see also Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1120-21 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Berent v. Kemper Corp.
E.D. Mich. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1125-1126 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff 'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1988) (“Because plaintiff’s first cause of action fails to state a claim for relief for securities fraud, the plaintiff cannot rely on this claim to establish the predicate acts necessary to sustain his third cause of action under RICO.”); Dumbarton Condominium Association v. 3120 R Street Associates Limited Partnership, 657 F.Supp. 226, 232 (D.D.C.1987) (where the court held that because the contracts entered into between the parties were not “investment contracts” subj…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Feder v. MacFadden Holdings, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 659 F.Supp. 1115, 1124 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1987) (plaintiff could not rely on alleg *51 edly false statements made two years after sold securities); Petersen v. Federated Development Co., 416 F.Supp. 466, 475 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (whether plaintiff “affected by the tender offer literature ... depends upon whether his contact with the offending material came at a time when he could have effectively acted upon it”) Hence, only statements or omissions made in the Offer to Purchase and Schedule 14d-l (both dated April 22, 1986), and …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John P. Cahill
v.
Arthur Andersen & Company, a Partnership Enterprise, John P. Cahill v. Robert Chambers, J. Kevin Murphy, Joseph F. Carlino, James E. Healey, Marc C. Gillen and John Does 1-5
1029.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 29, 1987.
822 F.2d 14
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · Third Circuit (1)

822 F.2d 14

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,298, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6678

John P. CAHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN & COMPANY, a Partnership enterprise,
Defendant-Appellee.
John P. CAHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert CHAMBERS, J. Kevin Murphy, Joseph F. Carlino, James
E. Healey, Marc C. Gillen and John Does 1-5,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1029, Docket 87-7059.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 28, 1987.
Decided June 29, 1987.

John P. Cahill, New York City, pro se.

Bertrand C. Sellier, New York City (Sidney H. Stein, Stein, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Arthur Andersen & Co.

Daniel G. Gurfein, New York City (James F. Rittinger, David G. Curran, Satterlee & Stephens, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Chambers.

Julian Jawitz, Mineola, N.Y. (Carlino, Lefkowitz, Bornes & Bolstad, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees Murphy, Carlino, Haley and Gillen.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiff pro se John P. Cahill appeals from a December 22, 1986 judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("1986 Judgment"), Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge, (1) summarily dismissing his complaint against defendant Arthur Andersen & Company ("Andersen"), which alleged that Andersen had conspired with others in violation of, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982), and Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) (1982), to force Cahill to sell his interest in Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc., and (2) denying his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment in Cahill v. Chambers, 82 Civ. 6327 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1983) ("1983 Judgment"), which had been entered pursuant to an agreement among all of the parties therein, who did not include Andersen, to settle Cahill's similar claims against the defendants therein. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief from the 1983 Judgment, and we affirm the 1986 Judgment on the ground that the 1983 Judgment constituted res judicata for the reasons stated by Judge Cedarbaum in her opinion dated December 17, 1986, published at 659 F.Supp. 1115.