green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dean v. City of Buffalo
an attorney's affidavit that is not based upon personal knowledge or supported by admissible evidence is insuffi 409 cient to defeat a summary judgment motion
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bauchelle v. AT & T CORP.
Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., (“MCT’), 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 *643 (1996). 3 In MCI, the plaintiff telephone company brought an action against a pay telephone owner, seeking to recover for unpaid services provided under the company’s tariffs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Global Naps, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1112 (3d Cir.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Mars Emergency Med.
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph Monti and Tita Monti v. United States
See Randell v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 103-04 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 65 , 136 L.Ed.2d 26 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morris v. Lenihan
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Princess Cruises, Inc. v. United States
See Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 739-41 , *1361 116 S.Ct. 1730 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (holding that neither an agency’s delay in promulgating a regulation nor the fqct that “it was litigation which disclosed the need for the regulation” affects the court’s deference to the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as embodied in such regulations).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jacqueline Polonski Oscar Berrios Michele Boyle Neil Browen, Sr. Judy Lowe-Brown Maria Buchel Dori Byrnes Donna Campo-Polkalski Joann Carman Stephanie Postlewait-Castaldi Michele Cocozza Doris Spiegel-Conti Jeannanne Deluca Noelle Disomma Elizabeth J. Ellis Sharon Fatato Jamie Feldman Tyler Fitzgerald Cindi Franco Tracey Giery Katurah Godaro Guillermo Rivera Michael Hainsworth Scott C. Johnson Sandra Lancieri Catherine Liosi Debra Lupu Richard Marin Irene Martinez Kim Meersand Beverly L. Miranda Lina Montecalvo Diane Moosher Muriel Nale Vivian Nutlie Patrice Pinchock Vince Pompili Kathleen Quinn Darlene Robinson Theresa Schweighardt Denise Stauffenberg Julie A. Strzmiechna Sharon Tabasco Sharon Tocco Kim Vinci Sally Weisdock Sharon Wolf Robin Youshaw (Hereinafter Cocktail Servers) Michael Raco Veronica Wilson Joseph Antonelli Richard Fante Daniel Moranis Louis Nastasi Richard Rosen Maurice Sherrod William Tracy John Withers, (Hereinafter Bartenders) v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates Local 54, of the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees International Union (h.e.r.e.i.u.) Abc, Inc., (A Fictitious Name) John Doe, (A Fictitious Name) (d.c. Civil 91-Cv-03014). Dorothea A. Arcuri Patricia Brooks, Victoria Bryant Karen Carlini Robert Donovan Philip K. Ferguson Nancy Guerrera Robert Hingos Lee A. Kinsell Charles McBride June McBride Rosalie McCarthy Michele McCartney Janet M. Medio Linda Meranus Gregory Natale Marianne K. Ortzman Ronald Pagano Anna Marie Platania Geri Shannon Donald Silano Jeanette Sopuch Kenneth W. Strain Trasena Tauso Elizabeth Walker Victoria Weger Richard Zak Joanne Capetola John Lascowski Adrienne M. Palermo Mary Ann Peterson Susan Petrone Barry L. Wright v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates Local 54, of the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees International Union (h.e.r.e.i.u.) Abc, Inc., (A Fictitious Name) John Doe, (A Fictitious Name) (d.c. Civil 9l-Cv-03529), Local 54, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1092 (3d Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1992); Williams v. Guzzardi, 875 F.2d 46, 49 (3d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Polonski v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1092 (3d Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc. v. Ranson
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1104 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Comcast Cellular Telecommunications Litigation
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1093-96 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re LymeCare, Inc.
(2×)
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996). [13] Plaintiffs' contention that Horizon failed to plead collateral estoppel is rejected.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Neuner v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (In re Lymecare, Inc.)
(2×)
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sostre
(2×)
See, e.g., People v. Horton, 11 Cal. 4th *288 1068, 906 P.2d 478 , 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S. Ct. 63 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
(2×)
See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1093-96 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Nordlicht v. New York Tel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
IPCO Safety Corp. v. WorldCom, Inc.
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1103-04 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (holding that issues which implicate the utility’s tariff filed with the PUC are deemed to be within the primary jurisdiction of the PUC); National Comm. Ass’n.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mused v. United States of America Department of Agriculture Food & Nutrition Service
See McGann v. New York, 77 F.3d 672, 674-75 (2d Cir.1996) (dismissing pro se complaint for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C) even though defendant had actually received summons and complaint); Delicada v. Bowen, 116 F.R.D. 564, 566 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (to extent prejudice to defendant is a valid inquiry, it is only relevant where plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to make service); see also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir.1995) (“absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to excuse late service”), cert. denied, _…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shong-Ching Tong
v.
Turner
v.
Turner
No. 95-1898.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.