green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.5 score
“prejudgment interest, while not specifically mentioned in the warsaw convention, is allowable in cargo loss case since it speeds settlement and recovery and fully compensates the successful plaintiff for the time and value of its money that defendant enjoyed from the delay in pay…”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
New York Marine & General Insurance v. S/S \Ming Prosperity\""
prejudgment interest, while not specifically mentioned in the warsaw convention, is allowable in cargo loss case since it speeds settlement and recovery and fully compensates the successful plaintiff for the time and value of its money that defendant enjoyed from the delay in pay…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael D. Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hospital, Michael D. Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hospital
Ct. 1958, 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 F.3d 255, 260 (1st Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Incorporated v. Dev Industries, Incorporated, Press MacHinery Corporation, and Robert J. Fleck, Rockwell Graphic Systems, Incorporated v. Dev Industries, Incorporated, Press MacHinery Corporation, Robert J. Fleck, Toshio Yamagata, Michael Schwartz, and Randall Coakley, Jr., Toshio Yamagata and Tensor Group, Incorporated, Nos. 95-1280, 95-1351
Co. of New Hampshire, 848 F.Supp. 318, 327 (D.R.I.1994), aff'd, 43 F.3d 763 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct.1959, 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruffino v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.
In short, everything depends on the individual facts.’ " Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. — S. Ct. 1958, 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (citations omitted). 46 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barbara Wytrwal v. Saco School Board
Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 _____ _______________________ F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. _____________ Ct. 1958, 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Shreveport v. Noel Estate, Inc.
(2×)
See State, Dept. of Transp. and Development v. McMillion Dozer Service, Inc., 93-590 (La.App. 5th Cir.05/31/94), 639 So.2d 766 , writ denied, *85 94-2345, 94-2348 (La.11/29/94), 646 So.2d 399 , cert denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Motorola, Inc., a Corporation Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Federal Express Corporation, and Kuehne & Nagel, Inc.
(2×)
See Maro Leather Co. v. Aerolineas Argentinas, 161 Misc.2d 920 , 617 N.Y.S.2d 617 , 620 (1994) (awarding prejudgment interest in a case involving the loss of goods under the Convention), ce rt. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); Eli Lilly Argentina, S.A. v. Aerolineas Argentinas, 133 Misc.2d 858 , 508 N.Y.S.2d 865, 867 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bilodeau v. Mega Industries
(2×)
See id. (quoting Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 12 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eckel Industries, Inc. v. Primary Bank
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 12 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ruiz v. Posadas
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 115 S. Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (stating that relief will not be granted "to a plaintiff who has been discharged unfairly, even by the most irrational of managers, received.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ruiz v. Posadas
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 115 S. Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (stating that relief will not be granted "to a plaintiff who has been discharged unfairly, even by the most irrational of managers, received.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ivan RUIZ, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. POSADAS DE SAN JUAN ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Appellee
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (stating that relief will not be granted “to a plaintiff who has been discharged unfairly, even by the most irrational of managers, unless the facts and circumstances indicate that discriminatory animus was the reason for the decision”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (Title VII — sex discrimination); Holt v. KMI-Continental, Inc., 95 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1819 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997) (§ 1981 and Title VII — race and sex discrimination); Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 762 (3d Cir.1994) (Title VII — national origin discrimination); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosen v. Casiano Communications, Inc.
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); Vega v. Kodak Caribbean Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. Dow Chemical Co.
(2×)
See Ezzone v. Riccardi, 525 N.W.2d 388, 398 (Iowa 1994) (stating that aiding and abetting liability cannot attach unless the primary party commits a wrong, the aider knows of the wrong, and the aider substantially assists the achievement of the primary violation), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); National Westminster Bank v. Weksel, 124 A.D.2d 144 , 511 N.Y.S.2d 626, 630 (noting that plaintiff must establish that alleged aider and abettor acted with intention of advancing the tortious activity), appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 604 , 519 N.Y.S.2d 1027 , 513 N.E.2d 130…
discussed
Cited "see"
Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. Dow Chemical Co.
(2×)
See Ezzone v. Riccardi, 525 N.W.2d 388, 398 (Iowa 1994) (stating that aiding and abetting liability cannot attach unless the primary party commits a wrong, the aider knows of the wrong, and the aider substantially assists the achievement of the primary violation), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); National Westminster Bank v. Weksel, 124 A.D.2d 144 , 511 N.Y.S.2d 626, 630 (noting that plaintiff must establish that alleged aider and abettor acted with intention of advancing the tortious activity), appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 604 , 519 N.Y.S.2d 1027 , 513 N.E.2d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mulero Rodriguez v. Ponte, Inc.
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mulero Rodriguez v. Ponte, Inc.
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11 , ___ _____ ______________________ 15 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 1958 _____________ (1995); Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir. ____ ______________________ 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
72 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 406, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,437 Gilberto Mulero-Rodrguez, Gladys Ortiz-Margarys v. Ponte, Inc. And Haydee Sabines, Widow of Ponte
(2×)
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995); Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Fausto v. Welch
See Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1958 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Fausto v. Welch
See Smith _____ _____ ___ _____ v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1994), _______________________ cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1958 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barbour v. Dynamics Research
See Udo, slip op. at 8 ___ ___ (citing Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st _____ _______________________ Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1958 (1995)). _____ ______ Barbour argues that Hicks precludes summary _____ judgment where there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant's proffered reasons are a pretext.
examined
Cited "see"
Barbour v. Dynamics Research Corp.
(4×)
See Udo, 54 F.3d at 13 (citing Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dystar Corp. v. Canto
See, e.g., In re Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 848 F.Supp. 318, 327 (D.R.I.1994), affm’d, 43 F.3d 763 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1108 , 115 S.Ct. 1959 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995) (nonparty admitted he had read injunction at his deposition and therefore had notice of the order).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Isles v. WHC JR.
See, e.g., Smith v. Stratus Computers, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1958 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Isles v. WHC JR.
See, e.g., ___ ____ Smith v. Stratus Computers, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. _____ _______________________ 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1958 (1995).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Myra J. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSBANK OF FLORIDA N.A., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
(4×)
Compare Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1994) (though plaintiff created genuine issue of fact on question of whether employer's proffered reasons were pretextual, summary judgment for employer appropriate where court finds that no reasonable juror could infer discriminatory intent from evidence of pretext), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1958 , 131 L.Ed.2d 850 (1995), 3 with Courtney v. Biosound, Inc., 42 F.3d 414 , 424 n. 4 (7th Cir.1994) ("implicit in [Hicks '] holding is that once the plaintiff has cast doubt on the employer's proffered reasons, the issue of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Smith
v.
Stratus Computer, Inc.
v.
Stratus Computer, Inc.
No. 94-1416.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 15, 1995.
Cited by 70 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.