green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Melinda Williams v. John R. Kemp, Jr.
See generally Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 833-36 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 (1992)(discussion of history and application of awards of prejudgment interest).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Kemp (In Re Kemp)
See generally Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 833-36 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 , 113 S.Ct. 394 , 121 L.Ed.2d 302 (1992) (discussion of history and application of awards of prejudgment interest).
discussed
Cited "see"
Owen v. SoundView Financial Group, Inc.
See Katsaros v. Cody, 744 F.2d 270, 281 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1072 , 105 S.Ct. 565 , 88 L.Ed.2d 506 (1984). *326 However, “prejudgment interest is a discretionary matter for the court and should be awarded only in cases where such an award is ‘fair, equitable and necessary to compensate the wronged party fully.’” Mendez v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assoc. & College Retirement Equities Fund, 982 F.2d 783 , 790 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Wickham Contracting v. Local Union No. 3, IBEW, 955 F.2d 831, 835 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 , 113 S.Ct. 394 , 121 L.Ed.2d 302 (19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Meeks v. Perroni (In re Armstrong)
See generally Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 833-36 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 , 113 S.Ct. 394 , 121 L.Ed.2d 302 (1992) (discussion of history and application of awards of prejudgment interest).
cited
Cited "see"
Luciano v. Olsten Corp.
See Wickham v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 835 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 , 113 S.Ct. 394 , 121 L.Ed.2d 302 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William L. Hart
See United States v. Ushery, 968 F.2d 575, 580 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 946 , 113 S.Ct. 392 , 121 L.Ed.2d 301 (1992); United States v. Dabish, 708 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gierlinger v. Gleason
A.. Prejudgment Interest In a Suit to enforce a federal right, the question of whether or not to award prejudgment interest is ordinarily left to the discretion of the district court, see, e.g., Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071-72 (2d Cir.1995), which is to take into consideration “(i) the need to fully compensate the wronged party for actual damages suffered, (ii) considerations of fairness and the relative equities of the award, (iii) the remedial purpose of the statute involved, and/or (iv) such other general principles as are deemed relevant by the c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca2 1998
A. Prejudgment Interest 78 In a suit to enforce a federal right, the question of whether or not to award prejudgment interest is ordinarily left to the discretion of the district court, see, e.g., Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071-72 (2d Cir.1995), which is to take into consideration "(i) the need to fully compensate the wronged party for actual damages suffered, (ii) considerations of fairness and the relative equities of the award, (iii) the remedial purpose of the statute involved, and/or (iv) such other general principles as are deemed relevant by the c…
Brown
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 92-5895.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 19, 1992.
506 U.S. 946
C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.