Taipei Econ. & Cultural Rep. Off., in the United States v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Taipei Econ. & Cultural Rep. Off., in the United States v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hill v. United States Parole Commission (dcd, 2017-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. United States Parole Commission
D.D.C. · 2017 · signal: accord · confidence high
While revoking parole for a person already released implicates due process, rescinding a parole grant prior to release violates “no protected ‘liberty’ interest.” Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 21 (1981); accord Rogers v. Barry, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" Jordan v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See LaShawn A. v. Barry, 1996 WL 679301 , 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1996) (summarily affirming revised consent decree, despite the fact the consent decree extended somewhat “beyond federal law” because defendants had consented to the decree, “District law is not materially less demanding than federal law,” and the district court had implicitly reasoned that “the substitution of District law alone as the basis of the decree, in place of reliance on federal plus District law, did not materially undermine the District’s consent”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mitchell, Dennis L.
D.C. Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mitchell, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1997) (table).
cited Cited "see" Minnesota Trust Co. of Austin v. Yanke (In Re Yanke)
Bankr. D. Minn. · 1998 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, In re Richardson, 193 B.R. 378, 380-382 (D.D.C.1995), aff'd, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1997), cert. den., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 143 , 139 L.Ed.2d 90 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Gilmore v. U.S. Department of Energy
N.D. Cal. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tax Analysts v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 913 F.Supp. 599 (D.D.C.1996), aff'd without opinion, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997) (“Tax Analysts II ”) 1 In Tax Analysts II, the plaintiff had submitted a FOIA request seeking to compel the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to disclose its JURIS electronic legal research database.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Reich v. U.S. Department of Energy
D. Mass. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare id., with Citizens for Responsibility, 527 F.Supp.2d at 93-94 (finding that the second factor weighed in favor of the materials being considered agency records because there were no limitations on how the agency used or disposed of them). 3.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Halstead v. Bilter (In Re Bilter)
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defalcation is defined as “the slightest misconduct, and it need not be intentional conduct; negligence or ignorance may be defalcation.” Bailey v. Sonnier (In re Sonnier), 157 B.R. 976, 984 (E.D.La.1993), (quoting Morales v. Codias (In re Codias), 78 B.R. 344, 346 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1987) (citation omitted)); see also Caldwell v. Hanes (In re Hanes), 214 B.R. 786 at 813 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1997) (citing Old Republic Surety Co. v. Richardson (In re Richardson), 178 B.R. 19, 27-30 (Bankr.D.D.C.1995), aff 'd, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1997)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Global Express Money Orders, Inc. v. Davis (In Re Davis)
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defalcation is defined as “the slightest misconduct, and it need not be intentional conduct; negligence or ignorance may be defalcation.” Bailey v. Sonnier (In re Sonnier), 157 B.R. 976, 984 (E.D.La.1993), quoting Morales v. Codias (In re Codias), 78 B.R. 344, 346 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1987) (citation omitted); see also Hanes, 214 B.R. at 813 , citing Old Republic Surety Co. v. Richardson (In re Richardson), 178 B.R. 19, 27-30 (Bankr.D.D.C.1995), aff'd, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McCaleb v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 1998 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare also Jackson v. Tyler’s Dad’s Place, Inc., 850 F.Supp. 53, 55-56 (D.D.C.1994), aff'd by unpublished order, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C.Cir.1996) (indicating that refusal to serve plaintiffs in the main dining room instead of the bar would constitute a § 1981 violation if the refusal had been racially motivated).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, in the United States
v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
96-7008.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 12, 1996.
107 F.3d 923
Unpublished

107 F.3d 923

323 U.S.App.D.C. 290

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, IN THE
UNITED STATES, Appellant,
v.
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 96-7008.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 12, 1996.

Before WILLIAMS, HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal was considered on the record before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs of counsel. The issues have been accorded full consideration by this court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b).

2

Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction and the denial of its motion to amend the complaint and present newly discovered evidence. Substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its various memoranda and orders, see, e.g., Coordination Council for North American Affairs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-1766 (D.D.C. Nov. 18, 1995), it is

3

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

4

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41(a).