green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Quartararo v. Hoy
See Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d without opinion, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Bay Networks Group, Inc. v. Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, B.V.
See Dighello v. Busconi, 673 F.Supp. 85, 87 (D.Conn.1987), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Sparman v. Edwards
See generally, Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212, 243 (E.D.N.Y.) (Korman, J.), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Quartararo v. Catterson
(2×)
See Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph M. Pascale v. United States of America (d.c. Civil No. 92-00695). Joseph M. Pascale v. James S. Kalafatis United States of America Department of the Treasury United States Secret Service John Doe (A Fictitious Name) (d.c. Civil No. 92-01351). Joseph M. Pascale
See Hannon v. United States Postal Serv., No. 87-6033, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988) (table) 6 Even the district court in the instant case, without acknowledging the inconsistency in its position, wrote that "an agency can easily deny a claim and begin the six-month period of limitations if it is concerned that a claimant will file suit numerous years after the claim could have been deemed denied." App. at 35 n. 6
cited
Cited "see"
Pascale v. United States
See Hannon v. United States Postal Serv., No. 87-6033, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988) (table). .
cited
Cited "see"
James Carmel, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Emil Stavriotis and Judith Stavriotis v. Clapp & Eisenberg, P.C., and Gerald Litwin
See Broad v. Conway, 675 F.Supp. 768 (N.D.N.Y.1987), aff 'd without op., 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 , 109 S.Ct. 313 , 102 L.Ed.2d 331 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Hughes v. United States Postal Service
See Royall v. U.S. Postal Service, 624 F.Supp. 211, 214 (E.D.N.Y.1985), aff 'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Smith
See also Dighello v. Busconi, 673 F.Supp. 85 (D.Conn.1987), aff'd without pub'd opinion, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988) (”[N]ot only the contract to arbitrate but also the parties' submission of the issues expressly empowered the Arbitration Panel to determine the rights, obligations and liabilities of the four corporate entities whose activities played major roles in the grievances presented for resolution.") (citations omitted). 33 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manuel KAPLAN; Carol Kaplan; MK Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC., Appellee
See Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 523 F.2d 527, 539 (2d Cir.1975) (“In an appropriate situation, the corporate veil may be pierced and a party may be held bound to arbitrate as the signatory’s alter ego.”) (citing Fisser v. International Bank, 282 F.2d 231, 233-34 (2d Cir.1960)), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 785 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976); see also Dighello v. Busconi, 673 F.Supp. 85, 89 (D.Conn.1987), aff'd mem., 849 F.2d 1467 (2d.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stratmon v. United States
In Kimmelman , for example, the Court held that counsel had been ineffective only after finding that counsel’s errors *1183 were “pervasive.” 477 U.S. at 386 , 106 S.Ct. at 2588-89; see also, e.g., Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212, 248 (E.D.N.Y.) (holding that combination of counsel’s failure to make opening statement, failure to object to inadmissible and damaging evidence, failure to object to prosecutor’s grossly inflammatory summation, and an inadequate summation of his own added up to ineffective assistance), affd without opinion, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988). 12 Appellant pre…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hemingway v. Henderson
See, e.g., Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212, 230 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988); cf. United States v. De Sisto, 329 F.2d 929, 933 (2d Cir.) (“The rule limiting the use of prior statements by a witness subject to cross-examination to their effect on his credibility has been described by eminent scholars and judges as ‘pious fraud,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘basically misguided,’ [and] ‘mere verbal ritual.’ ”), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979 , 84 S.Ct. 1885 , 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arce
v.
Brimmer
v.
Brimmer
88-2024.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 5, 1988.
Published
ARCE
v.
Brimmer
NO. 88-2024
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
MAY 05, 1988
1
Appeal From: N.D.N.Y.
2
AFFIRMED.