green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Beckwith v. Erie County Water Authority
See, e.g., Birmingham v. Ogden, 70 F.Supp.2d 353, 372 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“federal courts are loath to exercise jurisdiction over Article 78 claims.”); Camacho v. Brandon, 56 F.Supp.2d 370, 380 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“we see no reason to exercise [the court’s] discretion [to exercise supplemental jurisdiction] by adjudicating a purely state procedural [and substantive] remedy.”); Lucchese v. Carboni, 22 F.Supp.2d 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (“Article 78 proceedings were designed for the state courts, and are best suited to adjudication there.”); Herrmann v. Brooklyn Law School, 432 F.Supp. 236,…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain v. Boeing Company
But see Ore & Chemical Corp. v. Stinnes Interoil, 606 F.Supp. 1510, 1512-13 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (holding district court does not have authority to consolidate arbitrations because Nereus is no longer good law) 2 Although in New England Energy v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989), the First Circuit held that a district court could order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, that court relied on a state arbitration law that specifically authorizes such consolidation.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp.
we disagree that ordering consolidation pursuant to a state statute when the contract is silent on the subject improperly modifies the agreement struck by the parties in violation of section four .
discussed
Cited "see"
In re the Acquisition of Real Property
Contrary assertions, without more, that there was no emergency different from petitioner’s prior declaration thereof were properly rejected (see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 70 AD2d 920, 921 [1979]; see generally Yonkers Racing Corp. v City of Yonkers, 858 F2d 855 [1988], cert denied 489 US 1077 [1989]).
cited
Cited "see"
Keystone Shipping Co. v. New England Power Co.
See New England Energy Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keystone v. New England Power
See New England Energy ___ __________________ Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1988), ____ _____________________ cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 (1989). _____ ______ Before the arbitration was concluded, the parties settled their differences through a settlement agreement signed by Keystone, NEP, and NEEI in October 1989 ("the 1989 settlement agreement").
cited
Cited "see"
Curtis v. School Committee
See Yonkers Racing Corp. v. Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855 , 871 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Champ v. Siegel Trading Co.
(2×)
See New England Energy, Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Champ v. Siegel Trading Company, Inc.
(2×)
See New England Energy Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca2 1992
See Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 863-64 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989); Ludlow Park Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Westchester, 741 F.Supp. 1126, 1129 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 930 F.2d 909 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 61 , 116 L.Ed.2d 37 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. City of New York
See Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 863-64 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989); Ludlow Park Homeowners Ass’n v. County of Westchester, 741 F.Supp. 1126, 1129 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 930 F.2d 909 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 61 , 116 L.Ed.2d 37 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Town of Norfolk v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Accord New England Energy, Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America, Afl-Cio
Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 , 98 S.Ct. 364, 373 , 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (citations omitted); see also Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 863 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989); Benjamin v. Malcolm, 803 F.2d 46, 53 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 910 , 107 S.Ct. 1358 , 94 L.Ed.2d 528 (1987); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 338 (2d Cir.1985). 29 Despite this authority, Yellow Freight contends that the Consent Decree cannot be enforced against it because Yellow Freight is not a party to the Consent Decree.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 , 98 S.Ct. 364, 373 , 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (citations omitted); see also Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 863 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989); Benjamin v. Malcolm, 803 F.2d 46, 53 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 910, 107 S.Ct. 1358 , 94 L.Ed.2d 528 (1987); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 338 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
See, e.g., New England Energy, Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co., 855 F.2d 1 , 4 n. 2 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077 , 109 S.Ct. 1527 , 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989); Apex Fountain Sales, Inc. v. Kleinfeld, 818 F.2d 1089 (3rd Cir.1987); Mesa Operating Ltd.
Lebman
v.
Aktiebolaget Electrolux
v.
Aktiebolaget Electrolux
No. 88-1114.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 20, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.