green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Grant v. Cornell University
See Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 766 F.Supp. 1290, 1301-02 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992); see also Coser v. Moore, 739 F.2d 746, 750 (2d Cir.1984) (“the availability pool for certain specialized positions may be very small.... [and] sex characteristics of a particular availability pool may differ from those of the general population”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK
See Halbrook v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 766 F.Supp. 1290, 1301-1302 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992). 6 This issue is irrelevant here, where the disputed statistical evidence was accompanied by a variety of other evidence that Defendants acted in a discriminatory manner.
discussed
Cited "see"
Castano v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Castano, 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992). 1 On April 27,1993, Castaño filed the instant petition.
discussed
Cited "see"
Vasquez v. United States
See United States v. Padilla, Nos. 90-1043, 91-1136, 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 1992). 1 On May 4, 1993, Vasquez filed an applica tion to vacate the fine imposed by the Court. 2 On December 27, 1993, Vasquez filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that the Court misapplied the Guidelines.
discussed
Cited "see"
Vasquez v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Vasquez, Nos. 90-1043, 91-1136, 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 1992). 1 On May 4, 1993, Vasquez filed the instant petition to vacate the fine imposed by the Court. 2 In his petition, Vasquez argues that the Court failed to properly consider the factors set forth in § 5E1.2 of the Guidelines.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Shalala
See id. at 1350-51 Another case relied on by the State, Himes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 258, 270-71 (W.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd without published opinion, 956 F.2d. 1159 (2d Cir.1992), also is, at bottom, just a holding that plaintiffs with actual notice lack standing to complain of formal notice defects, because they were not prejudiced by them.
cited
Cited "see"
FRERKS BY FRERKS v. Shalala
See Himes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 258, 259 (W.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd without opinion 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Frerks ex rel. Frerks v. Shalala
See Himes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 258, 259 (W.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd without opinion 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Melvin Peura, by and Through His Guardian, Bill Herman and Astrid Peura v. Theodore A. Mala State of Alaska, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellee
Emerson, 959 F.2d at 124 , rev'g Emerson v. Wynia, 754 F.Supp. 705 (D.Minn.1991); see also Himes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 258 (W.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd mem., 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Peura ex rel. Herman v. Mala
Emerson, 959 F.2d at 124 , rev’g Emerson v. Wynia, 754 F.Supp. 705 (D.Minn. 1991); see also Himes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 258 (W.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd mem., 956 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Mejia-Martinez
v.
Mejia-Martinez
91-1517.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 14, 1992.
Published
U.S.
v.
Mejia-Martinez
NO. 91-1517
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Jan 14, 1992
1
Appeal From: E.D.N.Y.
2
AFFIRMED.