green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.7 score
“it would be absurd that a party who has chosen not to argue a point on a first appeal should stand better as regards the law of the case than one who had argued and lost.”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983
it would be absurd that a party who has chosen not to argue a point on a first appeal should stand better as regards the law of the case than one who had argued and lost.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Branch v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc.
he law of the case will be disregarded only when the court has 'a clear conviction of error' with respect to a point of law on which its previous decision was predicated
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security
See Carrillo v. Heckler, 599 F. Supp. 1164 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (citing Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100 , 108 (2d Cir.1981) (applying the law of the case doctrine to a Social Security appeal), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 (1982)); Calderon v. Astrue, 683 F. Supp. 2d 273, 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Olmsted v. Pruco Life Ins. Co. of New Jersey
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100 , 105 (2d Cir.1981) (finding insufficient grounds for departing from the law of the case which assumed a private right exists), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369, 373 (1st Cir. 1971) (§ 36) (noting that the defendants did not contest the issue); Brown v. Bullock, 294 F.2d 415, 421 (2d Cir.1961) (§§ 37, 15(a), 15(b)) (assuming, without being presented with the issue, that a cause of action exists); Merine v. Prudential-Bache Utility Fund, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 715, 718 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (§ 20(a)) (s…
discussed
Cited "see"
Aerogroup International, Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd.
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981) (Friendly, J.) (discussing the distinction between dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal for failure to state a claim), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). 2 .Aerogroup asserts claims against Bata for false designation or origin, false description, false representation and infringement of trade dress under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1), patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 , and dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) — all federal …
discussed
Cited "see"
Blatt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 109-10 (2d Cir.1981) (distinguishing between implied causes of action under the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisors Act based upon their respective jurisdictional grants), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marco Antonio Copete Rosero, in No. 93-7600. United States of America v. Moreno-Mena, Luis Alberto Carlos Alberto Moreno-Valencia, A/K/A Luis Alberto Moreno-Mena, in No. 93-7601. United States of America v. Jorge Antonio Tovar, in No. 93-7602. United States of America v. Gabriel De Jesus Pineda, A/K/A Richardo Corrales Ramirez, in No. 93-7603. United States of America v. Simon De Jesus Moussa-Avila, in No. 93-7604
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); footnote 1, supra. Our decision in United States v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 161, 170 (3rd Cir.1986), does not compel a contrary result because the question at issue was not addressed by the court in that case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Purgess v. Sharrock
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir. 1981) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (test for whether claim can survive motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is more rigorous than that for whether it is substantial enough to confer federal jurisdiction).
discussed
Cited "see"
Purgess v. Sharrock
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (test for whether claim can survive motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is more rigorous than that for whether it is substantial enough to confer federal jurisdiction). 26 When the district court determined, at the end of the defendants' case, to dismiss plaintiff's last federal claim, there were no compelling reasons at that point to prevent a final determination of the state claims by the jury.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Great American Industries
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 108-09 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). 25 We continue to believe that a minority shareholder, who has lost his right to a state appraisal because of a materially deceptive proxy, may make "a sufficient showing of causal relationship between the violation and the injury for which he seeks redress." Mills, 396 U.S. at 385 , 90 S.Ct. at 622 .
cited
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Great American Industries, Inc.
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 108-09 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129
See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 267 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 108-09 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Gilmore v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
Accord Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 109 (2d Cir.1981), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Bancroft Convertible Fund, Inc. v. Zico Investment Holdings Inc.
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-12 (2d Cir.1981), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Bancroft Convertible Fund, Inc. v. Zico Investment Holdings Inc.
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-12 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Paul Jensen v. City Of San Jose
See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 268 (9th Cir.1981) (Smiddy I), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Jensen v. City of San Jose
See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 268 (9th Cir.1981) (Smiddy I), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Krome v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
There has been a “long standing practice in the courts of inferring private remedies under the ICA.” Note, Implied Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 40 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 1069, 1085-86 (1983) [hereinafter cited as Implied Rights of Action ]; accord Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 110 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Korpela & Reiser, Shareholders’ Suits Against Investment Companies, 30 A.L.
cited
Cited "see"
Grace M. Almonte v. National Union Fire Insurance Company
See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 265 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burnell Gaskin, Jr. v. Hiram Jowers, Chicago Insurance Company v. Transport Indemnity Company
See Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 533 F.Supp. 22 (D.S.C.1981), aff'd by unpublished opinion, 676 F.2d 690 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Scott County Master Docket
See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Henriquez
See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981) (Friendly, J.) (elaborating upon judicial confusion between "jurisdiction" and whether the complaint states a cause of action), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Soto v. City of Sacramento
See Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 296-97 (9th Cir.1959) (where gravamen of the injury is commitment to an institution by court order, the order of the court rather than defendant’s acts in initiating proceedings, is ordinarily the proximate cause of the injury), and Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266-68 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (police officer’s misconduct is ordinarily not the proximate cause of damages suffered after the prosecutor files a criminal complaint absent a showing that the prosecutor did not exercise independent judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. New York City Department of Social Services
(2×)
This doctrine applies to issues that have been decided “either expressly or by necessary implication.” Munro v. Post, 102 F.2d 686, 688 (2d Cir.1939); see Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 108 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maria Doe v. New York City Department Of Social Services
(2×)
This doctrine applies to issues that have been decided "either expressly or by necessary implication." Munro v. Post, 102 F.2d 686, 688 (2d Cir.1939); see Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 108 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Degulis v. LXR Biotechnology, Inc.
Furthermore, the law of the case doctrine, although not binding on the court, see id., “counsels against reopening issues previously decided” absent those same “compelling circumstances.” Siderpali, S.P.A v. Judal Indus., Inc., 833 F.Supp. 1023, 1027 (S.D.N.Y.1993); see also Branch v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., 765 F.Supp. 819, 823 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (“The law of the case will be disregarded only when the court has ‘a clear conviction of error’ with respect to a point of law on which its previous decision was predicated.”) (quoting Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 109 (2d Cir.1981), c…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco De Ponce v. Hinsdale Supermarket Corp.
See, e.g., Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paul S. Mullin & Associates, Inc. v. Bassett
See, e.g., Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 109-112 (2d Cir.1981) (discussing whether private right of action under ICA existed in light of Supreme Court decision in TAMA), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Note, Implied Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 40 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 1069 (1983) (reviewing recent Supreme Court decisions and concluding that courts should continue to imply private remedy under ICA).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perez-Perez v. Hanberry
Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir.1982); see also Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (discussing the tendency to confuse jurisdictional and pleading requirements). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Howard v. Collins, and United States of America, Intervenor v. William Foreman, Vincent Pilleters and Terry Warden
See, e.g., Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 116-17 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 , 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. NLRB, 547 F.2d 575 , 580 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 2923 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,001 Irving L. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Ready Assets Trust, Simone C. Andre v. Merrill Lynch Ready Assets Trust, and Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
See, e.g., Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 111 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). 13 In support of their advocacy of a "reasonableness" standard as the test by which a fiduciary's conduct under Sec. 36(b) should be governed, appellants point to excerpts from the Act's tortuous legislative history, just as the district court relied on other portions of the same history apparently rejecting that criterion in favor of a "breach of fiduciary duty" standard.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
See, e.g., Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 111 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied,- U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 65 , 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carolina Casualty Insurance Co.
v.
Transport Indemnity Co.
v.
Transport Indemnity Co.
No. 81-2157.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.