green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. v. Southeast Bank N.A.
See Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that D'Oench prevents borrowers from arguing that a condition in a loan agreement has been waived by the bank’s nonverbal conduct at the loan closing), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); Beighley v. FDIC, 868 F.2d 776, 783 (5th Cir.1989) (explaining that any inference derived from a bank's effort to help the borrower sell collateral would not appear in the bank’s records and thus would be barred by § 1823(e)); FDIC v. Hamilton, 939 F.2d 1225, 1229 (5th Cir.1991) ("The rationale which bars clai…
discussed
Cited "see"
Motorcity Of Jacksonville, Ltd. v. Southeast Bank N.A.
See Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that D'Oench prevents borrowers from arguing that a condition in a loan agreement has been waived by the bank's nonverbal conduct at the loan closing), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); Beighley v. FDIC, 868 F.2d 776, 783 (5th Cir.1989) (explaining that any inference derived from a bank's effort to help the borrower sell collateral would not appear in the bank's records and thus would be barred by § 1823(e)); FDIC v. Hamilton, 939 F.2d 1225, 1229 (5th Cir.1991) ("The rationale which bars claims b…
cited
Cited "see"
Cobb v. Monarch Finance Corp.
See Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, 922 F.2d 1306, 1316-17 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brookside Associates v. Rifkin
See Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir.1990) (if the debtor, seeking to avoid the bar of D’Oench, Duhme, quickly pays off a loan before FDIC files suit so that FDIC will no longer have an interest in an asset, D’Oench, Duhme should still apply to bar suit), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brookside Associates v. Rifkin
See Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir.1990) (if the debtor, seeking to avoid the bar of D'Oench, Duhme, quickly pays off a loan before FDIC files suit so that FDIC will no longer have an interest in an asset, D'Oench, Duhme should still apply to bar suit), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991). 31 Brookside's allegations describe just the sort of secret agreement in relation to a loan that Langley found violated the public policy behind the statute and the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. MacChia
See United States v. Rivieccio, 723 F.Supp. 867, 868 (E.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 919 F.2d 812 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); United States v. Corrao, 1993 WL 63018 , slip op. at 2 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. United States
See United States v. Rivieccio, 919 F.2d 812, 816 (2d Cir.1990) (“a violation of either the privilege against self-incrimination or 18 U.S.C. § 6002 requires only the suppression at- trial of a defendant’s compelled testimony”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McGee
See United States v. Rivieccio, 919 F.2d 812 , 816 n. 4 (2d Cir.1990) (“[W]hen the defendant testifies under immunity before the same grand jury returning the indictment or when the immunized testimony is placed before the indicting grand jury.... the indictment must be dismissed.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); but see United States v. Pisani, 590 F.Supp. 1326 , 1344 n. 17 (SD.N.Y.1984) (When live testimony is presented to the indicting grand jury, the Hinton per se rule applies.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harloff
See United States v. Tantalo, 680 F.2d 903, 907 (2d Cir.1982) (“[t]he fact that the appellant testified to matters related to his federal prosecution cast upon the Government the burden of establishing that the evidence to be used to prove his guilt was derived from legitimate sources.”) “Whether the Government made use of immunized grand jury testimony is an issue of fact, ...” United States v. Rivieccio, 919 F.2d 812, 814 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott A. Criswell v. State of Indiana
See also United States v. Rivieccio, 919 F.2d 812, 815 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); [United States v. Serrano, 870 F.2d 1, 17-18 (1st Cir.1989) ]. . 953 F.2d at 1474 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert A. Miller v. Air Line Pilots Association
Compare Lancaster v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int'l 76 F.3d 1509, 1521-23 (10th Cir.1996) (reading Hudson , including Justice White’s concurrence, to require excusable exhaustion of arbitration to avoid the wasteful expenditure of time and money) and Hudson v. Chicago *1421 Teachers Union, Local No. 1, 922 F.2d 1306, 1314 (7th Cir.) (federal courts should not review fee calculations at the notice stage because it would involve the courts in the micromanagement of fee calculation), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991), with Bromley v. Michigan Educ.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Plitt Amusement Company v. Act III Theatres, Inc. Act III Communications, Inc.
In order to establish a claim of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) [p]ossession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power; and (3) causal antitrust injury." Pacific Express, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 814 , 121 L.Ed.2d 686 (1992); see also Movie 1 & 2 v. United Artists Communications, 909 F.2d 1245 , 1254 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoban v. USLIFE Credit Life Insurance
Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp., 523 F.2d 349, 352-53 (7th Cir.1975); see also Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, 922 F.2d 1306, 1316-17 (7th Cir.) (reaffirming Peritz), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Narwick v. Wexler
Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp., 523 F.2d 349, 352-53 (7th Cir.1975); see also Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, 922 F.2d 1306, 1316-17 (7th Cir.1991) (reaffirming Peritz), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1230 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Inn At Saratoga Associates v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See OPS Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. FDIC, 992 F.2d 306, 309-10 (11th Cir.1993); see also Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); North Ark.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Inn at Saratoga Associates v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See OPS Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. FDIC, 992 F.2d 306, 309-10 (11th Cir.1993); see also Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231 , 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); North Ark.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Captain Stewart W. Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Association
Compare Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, 922 F.2d 1306 , 1314 (7th Cir.) (holding that non-union members must arbitrate disputes over calculation of agency shop fee), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991), with Tierney v. City of Toledo, 917 F.2d 927, 940 (6th Cir. 1990) (requiring union to remove exhaustion requirement from its arbitration procedures for contesting calculation of agency shop fee).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Forest Conservation Council v. Devlin
See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); see also United States v. Lara-Hernandez, 588 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1978) 5 Forest Conservation cites Movie 1 & 2 v. United Artists Communications, 909 F.2d 1245 , 1248-49 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991), as support for the assertion that review should be de novo.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Julio Velasco and Felix Garcia-Caban
(2×)
See also United States v. Rivieccio, 919 F.2d 812, 815 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2852 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1991); Serrano, 870 F.2d at 17-18 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paramount Pictures Corp.
v.
The Movie 1 & 2
v.
The Movie 1 & 2
No. 90-1593.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 24, 1991.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.