Eur. Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 546 U.S. 1092 (2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Eur. Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 546 U.S. 1092 (2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jarl Investments, L.P. v. Fleck (pasuperct, 2007-11-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jarl Investments, L.P. v. Fleck
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
Appellants dedicated a majority of their concise statement to the facts of the case and the law supporting their allegations of error. ¶ 12 On February 12, 2007, the trial court filed an opinion in which it characterized Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement as “lengthy and unenlightening.” Relying on Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 *1120 (2006), the court suggested that the issues raised on appeal should be deemed waived.
discussed Cited "see" Bell, R. v. Bell, H. & Kirk, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa.Super. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006) (holding that by raising outrageous number of issues in 15-page “concise” statements, defendants deliberately circumvented meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and effectively precluded appellate review of issues they sought to raise on appeal). -4- J-S29019-23 certified as a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2) an interlocutory order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3) an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b)); or (4) a coll…
discussed Cited "see" Republic of Colombia v. Diageo North America Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc. (hereinafter, “Amazonas”), 186 F.Supp.2d 231, 243 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (Garaufis, J.), aff'd in part and rev’d in part sub nom., European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. (hereinafter, “European Community I”), 355 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005), on reconsideration following remand, 424 F.3d 175 (2d Cir.2005) (hereinafter, “European Community II”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1045 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Levanduski (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 , 148 n. 4 (Pa.Super.2006) (citing Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 , 400 n. 6 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Velasquez, L. v. Miranda, L. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa.Super. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006) (stating: “By raising an outrageous number of issues, the Defendants have deliberately circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they now seek to raise”). “[A] [c]oncise [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.” Id. at 400.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
European Community
v.
RJR Nabisco, Inc.
No. 05-549.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 2006.
546 U.S. 1092
Published

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.