green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Ponder v. Conway
See Grace v. Artuz, 258 F.Supp.2d 162, 171-72 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (in absence of petitioner taking the stand to testify at trial, “petitioner’s claim as to the impropriety of the Sandoval ruling [did] not raise a constitutional issue cognizable on habeas review”) (citing Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1988)) aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (holding that in order “to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify”)); …
discussed
Cited "see"
Cato v. Superintendent of the Groveland Correctional Facility
See Grace v. Artuz, 258 F.Supp.2d 162, 171-72 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (in absence of petitioner taking the stand to testify at trial, “petitioner’s claim as to the impropriety of the Sandoval ruling [did] not raise a constitutional issue cognizable on habeas review”) (citing Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1988) aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989)) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (holding that in order “to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify”)); …
discussed
Cited "see"
Goston v. Rivera
See Grace v. Artuz, 258 F.Supp.2d 162, 171-72 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (in absence of petitioner taking the stand to testify at trial, “petitioner’s claim as to the impropriety of the Sandoval ruling [did] not raise a constitutional issue cognizable on habeas review”) (citing Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1988)) aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (holding that in order “to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify”)); …
discussed
Cited "see"
Brumfield v. Stinson
A habeas petitioner must prove that “the erroneously admitted evidence, viewed objectively in light of the entire record before the jury, was sufficiently material to provide the basis for conviction or to remove a reasonable doubt that would have existed on the record without it.” Collins v. Scully, 755 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1985); see Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Grace v. Artuz
See Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1988) aff'd. 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989)..
cited
Cited "see"
MacKenzie v. Portuondo
See Beverly v. Walker, 899 F.Supp. 900, 908 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (citing Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1438 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff 'd 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Collins v. Scully
See Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1439-40 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 , 105 S.Ct. 460, 464 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), and analogizing trial court’s Sandoval ruling to federal court ruling in Luce ), aff'd mem., 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Beebe v. Schwenn (In Re Schwenn)
Section 7-60-121(1) reads in pertinent part “[ejvery partner must account to the partnership for any benefit and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the ... partnership_” This statute imposed no trust relationship until Schwenn “derived” partnership profits without Beebe’s “consent.” This is “the sort of trust ex maleficio not included within the purview of § 523(a)(4).” Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1986); accord In re Stone, 94 B.R. 298, 302-03 (S.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd…
discussed
Cited "see"
Peterson v. LeFevre
See Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1439-40 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989); Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 151 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff 'd mem. 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 117 , 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989); Carrasquillo v. Kirk, 677 F.Supp. 193, 194-95 (S.D.N.Y.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aponte v. Scully
If evidence is erroneously admitted, the issue becomes “whether the erroneously admitted evidence, viewed objectively in the light of the entire record before the jury, was sufficiently material to *159 provide the basis for a conviction or to remove a reasonable doubt that would have existed on the record without it.” Collins v. Scully, 755 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1985); see Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989); In short, the evidence must have been crucial, critical or highly significant.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Andrews v. LeCLAIRE
June 12, 2008); See also Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989); Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Velazquez v. Poole
Thus, insofar as petitioner is alleging a violation of due process based on the insufficiency of the charges contained in the indictment, an indictment has been held to pass constitutional muster if it “ ‘charges a crime 1) with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of the charges he must meet and 2) with enough detail that he may plead double jeopardy in a future prosecution based on the same set of events.’ ” De Vonish v. Keane, 19 F.3d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir.1992)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 841 , 115 S.Ct. 128 , …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samuels v. Ellenbogen (In Re Ellenbogen)
See, e.g., Stone v. Stone (In re Stone), 90 B.R. 71, 80 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 94 B.R. 298 (S.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989); Semilof v. Waskew (In re Waskew), 191 B.R. 34, 37 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995); Peerless Ins.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Roberts v. Scully
See, e.g., Carroll v. Hoke, 695 F.Supp. 1435, 1438 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) , aff'd mem., 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir. 1989) .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boston Helicopter Charter, Inc. v. Agusta Aviation Corp.
See, e.g., Damin Aviation Corp. v. Sikorsky Aircraft, Div. of United Technologies Corp., 705 F.Supp. 170,172 (S.D.N.Y.) (1,000 hours or 2 years), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir.1989); Tokio Marine & Fire Ins., 617 F.2d at 941 (one year or 2,500 hours); cf. Hart Eng’g Co., 593 F.Supp. at 1480 (“the durational restriction that Hart challenges does not span a mere matter of days.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wildenstein & Co. v. Wallis
See also Damin Aviation Corp. v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 705 F.Supp. 170, 174 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 880 F.2d 1318 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fairprene Industrial Products
v.
Nlrb
v.
Nlrb
89-4015.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 5, 1989.
Published
133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2192
Fairprene Industrial Products
v.
NLRB
NOS. 89-4015, 89-4031
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
JUN 05, 1989
1
Appeal From: N.L.R.B.
2
ENFORCED.