green
Positive treatment
12.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benitez v. City of Reno
Morongo Band 17 of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). 18 By contrast, futility “alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” 19 Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 20 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Gamboa
See, e.g., Nunes v. 18 Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 443 (9th Cir. 2007) (no liberty interest in state right to collaterally 19 attack prior conviction used as enhancement in certain circumstances); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 20 815, 842 (9th Cir. 1995) (statutory right to have two attorneys argue capital case); Harris v. 21 Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1522-23 (9th Cir. 1990) (statutory right to effective assistance of mental 22 health expert in capital case).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ATLANTIC WRECK SALVAGE, LLC v. THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL KNOWN AS THE S.S. CAROLINA WHICH SANK IN 1918, HER ENGINES, TACKLE, APPURTENANCES AND CARGO
Titanic, Inc., 171 F.3d at 634 (citing Darlak v. Columbus–America Discovery Group, 59 F.3d 20, 22 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1094 (1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
1715 Fleet-Queens Jewels, LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Vessell
(2×)
Discovery Grp., Inc., 59 F.3d 20, 22-23 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Thorsteinsson and The Mary to hold that if a party has claims against the res that forms the subject of an in rem proceeding, he must participate in that proceeding to obtain relief); Merchs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Does
“Actions in rem, or ‘against the thing,’ are designed to adjudicate rights in specific property as against all of the world, and judgments in such cases are binding to the same extent.” Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, 59 F.3d 20, 22 (4th Cir.1995). 7 Due process *830 therefore requires that all interested parties, whether known or unknown, be provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Court orders final disposition of the property.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ehorn v. Abandoned Shipwreck Known as the Rosinco, Her Tackle, Appurtenances, Furnishings, & Cargo
Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20, 22-23 (4th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel
(2×)
The Fourth Circuit, however, , has stated that “[ajctions in rem, or ‘against the thing,’ are designed to adjudicate rights in specific property against all of the world, and judgments in such cases are binding to the same extent.” Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20, 22 (4th Cir.1995) (emphasis added), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 817 , 133 L.Ed.2d 761 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Acuna v. Godinez
See Gonzalez v. 18 Planned Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (“‘Futility of amendment can, 19 by itself, justify the denial of . . . leave to amend.’”) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 20 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 , 1007 21 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has 22 subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s 23 discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (internal quotation marks omitted) 24 (seco…
cited
Cited "see"
First Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc.
See Thai Airways Iwt’l Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V., 891 F.Supp. 113 , 119 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 59 F.3d 20 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Docket No. 03-7897(l)
See Thai Airways Int'l Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V., 891 F.Supp. 113 , 119 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 59 F.3d 20 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
RMS Titanic v. Haver
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20 , 22- 23 (4th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 98-1934
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20, 22-23 (4th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20, 22-23 (4th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. the Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel
See Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, 59 F.3d 20, 22 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1094 , 116 S.Ct. 817 , 133 L.Ed.2d 761 (1996) (holding that competing salvor was too late in asserting a claim after the liability phase of the proceedings were complete).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thai Airways International Ltd.
v.
United Aviation Leasing B v. And United Aviation Services, Inc., Safwan Kuzbari, Chafic Kuzbari, Maher A. Kuzbari, and John Does 1-10
v.
United Aviation Leasing B v. And United Aviation Services, Inc., Safwan Kuzbari, Chafic Kuzbari, Maher A. Kuzbari, and John Does 1-10
1747.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 11, 1995.
59 F.3d 20
Published
THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED AVIATION LEASING B.V. and United Aviation Services,
Inc., Defendants-Appellees,
Safwan Kuzbari, Chafic Kuzbari, Maher A. Kuzbari, and John
Does 1-10, Defendants.
No. 1747, Docket 95-7061.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued June 28, 1995.
Decided July 11, 1995.
Robert B. Davidson, Baker & McKenzie, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel J. Brooks, Layton Brooks & Hecht, New York City, for defendants-appellees.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, JACOBS and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Mukasey in the opinion below, Thai Airways Int'l Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V., 891 F.Supp. 113 (S.D.N.Y.1994). That opinion, in turn, assumes familiarity with the district court's prior opinion Thai Airways Int'l Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V., 842 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D.N.Y.1994).