green
Positive treatment
10.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Audell Petroleum Corp. v. Suburban Paraco Corp.
If the total volume of propane and transportation services purchased by Audell was sufficiently alleged to have been "not insubstantial," then arguably its plight would implicate the antitrust laws, notwithstanding Audell's status as a "single purchaser.” See Areeda, supra note 2, § 1721 (“[I]f the dollar volume meets the usual test, excepting the single-purchaser tie seems in *371 consistent with the logic of that test.”); but see Reisner v. General Motors Corp. 511 F.Supp. 1167, 1178 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 671 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
Swanson v. Applied Process Technology International, LLC (In re Delta-T Corp.)
(2×)
See The First State Bank v. Gotham Provision Co., Inc. (In re Gotham Provision Co.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1004-05 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 , (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Ward
See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 459 U.S. 858 , 867, 102 S. Ct. 3440 , 73 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Emigra Group, LLC v. Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP
Accord, Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1982), cer t. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982). 78 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillip Kunkel v. Sprague Natl. Bank
(2×)
See The First State Bank v. Gotham Provision Co., Inc. (In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1004-05 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kunkel v. Sprague National Bank
(2×)
See The First State Bank v. Gotham Provision Co., Inc. (In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1004-05 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
E. Armata, Inc. v. Platinum Funding Corp.
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.) (Packers and Stockyard Act provides constructive knowledge of trust), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); C.H.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sanzone-Palmisano Company v. M. Seaman Enterprises, Inc., Malone & Hyde, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Company, Inc., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.) (discussing the impossibility of tracing assets under similar trust provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 108 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); In re Fresh Approach, 51 B.R. at 422 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Steve McKinnon
The constitutional question is “whether the person invoking its [Fourth Amendment] protection can claim a ‘justifiable,’ a ‘reasonable,’ or a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that has been invaded by government action.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 , 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (referring to Katz); accord United States v. Shields, 675 F.2d 1152, 1158 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 353 , 88 S.Ct. at 512 and United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 752 , 91 S.Ct. 1122, 1126 , 28 L.E…
cited
Cited "see"
Obron Atlantic Corp. v. Barr
Accord United States v. Shields, 675 F.2d 1152, 1156-57 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); United States v. Tousant, 619 F.2d 810, 813 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Obron Atlantic Corporation v. Barr
Accord United States v. Shields, 675 F.2d 1152, 1156-57 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); United States v. Tousant, 619 F.2d 810, 813 (9th Cir.1980). 16 The parties have not referred us to any formulas or tests for determining when the government may be said to have "directed" an informant's activities, and our own research has uncovered none. 7 The statute itself is silent on this point.
discussed
Cited "see"
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Co. (First State Bank of Miami v. Gotham Provision Co.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1015 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Co. (First State Bank of Miami v. Gotham Provision Co.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1015 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur Montour, A/K/A Kakwirakeron
(2×)
See United States v. Sanzo, 673 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 128 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); see also United States v. Martino, 759 F.2d 998, 1002 (2d Cir.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Richard B. Rosenthal v. Prudential Property & Casualty Company
See Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee E. WANGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. GRAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See Payne v. Bobbie Brooks, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 707, 716-17 (N.D.Ohio 1980) (In the absence of a showing of futility or employer awareness that could constitute the functional equivalent of an application, one must apply for the position in question before claiming employment discrimination), aff 'd, 701 F.2d 180 (6th Cir.) (unpublished), cer t. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Idaho Bank & Trust
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, First State Bank of Miami v. Gotham Provision Co., 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); Hedrick v. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 1025, 1030 (E.D.Pa.1978); In re G & L Packing, 20 Bankr. 789 (Bankr.N.D.
examined
Cited "see"
People Ex Rel. Eichenberger v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical Clinic, Inc.
(4×)
First, even though the Legislature considered and enacted the amendments after the opinion in Planned Parenthood became final, [2] the amendments reflect no disavowal of Planned Parenthood's interpretation of the Act. (2) The Legislature is deemed to have approved the interpretation, because "`"Where a statute has been construed by judicial decision, and that construction is not altered by subsequent legislation, it must be presumed that the Legislature is aware of the judicial construction and approves of it."' ( Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 353 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 742 , 696 P…
discussed
Cited "see"
DeBruyn Produce Co. v. Victor Foods, Inc.
(2×)
Mahon v. Stowers, 416 U.S. 100 , 94 S.Ct. 1626 , 40 L.Ed.2d 79 (1974), on remand to, Matter of Samuels & Co., Inc., 510 F.2d 139 , (5th Cir.) on rehearing 526 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 834 , 97 S.Ct. 98 , 50 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); see In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc., 669 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 1025, 1029-1030 (E.D.Pa.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Murad Nersesian
(2×)
United States v. Sheiner, 410 F.2d 337, 340 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 825 , 90 S.Ct. 68 , 24 L.Ed.2d 76 (1969) (quoting Anderson v. United States, 270 F.2d 124, 127 (6th Cir.1959)); accord United States v. Sanzo, 673 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 128 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982). “[A] finding of knowledge that is largely inferential is not impermissible.” Sheiner, 410 F.2d at 340 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Marvin L. Fishman and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz, and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz
(2×)
See Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zimmerman v. National Electrical Benefit Fund (In Re Kaelin Associates Electrical Construction, Inc.)
(2×)
See In re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1014 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982) (Rule 6 is used to compute expiration of thirty day notice period).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paul Bender, George and Diane Decarlo v. Southland Corporation
See Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); Radobenko v. Automated Equipment Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985)); see also Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982) (finding it proper to "disregard those factual claims made by [the plaintiff] after [the defendant] moved for summary judgment, where those claims contradict statements made previously by [the plaintiff] at his deposition, in his affidavits, and in response to defendants' interrogatories”); Perma Research & Dev.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Better Life Club of America, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., In Re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.1982) (cattle acquired in one manner and mingled with cattle acquired in another cannot be separated out, so entire herd is subject to trust), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982); Austin Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of Trusts § 519.1 (4th ed.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Williams
“The rule is well settled in this circuit that a party may not, in order to defeat a summary judgment motion, create a material issue of fact by submitting an affidavit disputing his own prior sworn testimony.” Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc., 925 F.2d 566, 572 (2d Cir.1991); see also Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), (disregarding plaintiffs factual claims after defendant moved for summary judgment, “where those claims contradicted] statements made previously by plaintiff at his deposition, in his affidavits, and in response to defendan…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Humphreys v. Humphreys
See, e.g., Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 511 F.Supp. 1167, 1172 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff 'd, 671 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982) (prohibiting a plaintiff from amending the complaint after discovery was concluded and a summary judgment motion had been prepared). • Further, even assuming that the Court considered these late allegations, the plaintiff offers no evidence in support of her claim that the diagnoses of Organic Brain Syndrome and Toxic Encephalopathy were the result of a second injury.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rivkin v. Coleman
Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir.1969); see also Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of Am., 637 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1980); McGhan, 608 F.Supp. at 286.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(1); Tom Lange Co. v. Lombardo Fruit & Produce Co., 12 F.3d 806 , 809 (8th Cir.1993); Regulations under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 49 Fed.Reg. 45735, 45738 (1984); see also First State Bank of Miami v. Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1009-10 (5th Cir.) (interpreting Section 206 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 196 , on which the PACA trust provision was based), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brumer v. National Life of Vermont
See also Beisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982) (disregarding factual claims made by the plaintiff after the defendant moved for summary judgment “where those claims contradict statements made previously by [the plaintiff] at his deposition ...”); Perma Research and Development Co v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir.1969) (“If a party who has been examined at length on deposition could raise an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting his own prior testimony, this would great…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mary Jane Jenkins, Evan Peter Pigman, Jo Ann Rochelli, David Carl Stubbs, Rickie Herbert Ranney, and Larry Wayne Malady
See, e.g., United States v. Shields, 675 F.2d 1152, 1159 (11th Cir.1982) (Government need not obtain warrant to listen to audio recordings where valid consent obtained), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); United States v. Buettner-Janusch, 646 F.2d 759 , 767 n. 10 (2nd Cir.1981), Walter is distinguishable from the instant case in two respects.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tom Lange Co. v. Kornblum & Co. (In Re Kornblum & Co.)
(2×)
See Lombardo, 106 B.R. at 595 ; In re Milton Poulos, Inc., 94 B.R. 648, 651-52 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1988), aff 'd, 107 B.R. 715 (9th Cir.1989); In the Matter of United Fruit & Produce Co., 86 B.R. 14, 16 (Bankr.D.Conn.1988); Fresh Approach, 51 B.R. at 417-18 ; see also In re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982) (case under analogous Packers & Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.); but cf. In re Tanner, 77 B.R. 897, 898-99 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anic, Inc. v. Chipwich, Inc. (In Re Chipwich, Inc.)
(2×)
See also First State Bank of Miami v. Gotham Provision Co., Inc. (In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc.), 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982) (deciding, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the statute upon which PACA was modelled, that not only was the interest of the debtor’s secured lender subordinate to the rights of the trust beneficiaries, but that lender had to disgorge payments which the debtor had paid in reduction of its debt).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mid-Valley Produce Corp. v. 4-XXX Produce Corp.
(2×)
Gatziolis & Co., 774 F.Supp. 449, 452 (N.D.Ill.1991); see also In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc., 669 F.2d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982) (denying a course of dealing defense under the Packers & Stockyard Act, the statute on which PACA is modeled); In re G & L Packing Co., Inc., 41 B.R. 903, 914, n. 8 (N.D.N.Y.1984) (same); Hedrick v. S. Bonac *212 curso & Sons, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 1025 (E.D.Pa.1978) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CEPA Consulting, Ltd. v. King Main Hurdman (In Re Wedtech Securities Litigation)
A motion to amend at this juncture is “particularly disfavored.” CL-Alexanders Laing & Cruickshank v. Goldfeld, 739 F.Supp. 158, 167 (S.D.N.Y.1990); see also Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 511 F.Supp. 1167, 1172 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 671 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Albrecht v. Long Island Railroad
See e.g., Reisner v. General Motors, 511 F.Supp. 1167, 1172 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 671 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jsg Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc.
(2×)
See House Report at 11, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 414; see also In re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1010 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tribue v. United States
(2×)
Compare, e.g., Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980) (Rule 6(a) does not apply to the period prescribed by the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (e)), with In re Gotham Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1014 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 129 , 74 L.Ed.2d 111 (1982) (Rule 6(a) applies to federal statutes).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Halloran v. Ohlmeyer Communications Co.
Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir.1969); see also Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 , 103 S.Ct. 130 , 74 L.Ed.2d 112 (1982); Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of Am., 637 *1221 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1980); McGhan, 608 F.Supp. at 286 .
Sanzo
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 82-20.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.