green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Paola A. Alvardo-Fernandez v. Matthew Mazoff
other courts have found that the inter-american convention's provisions regarding service of process are neither mandatory nor exclusive.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pelletier v. InterBank
See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S. Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994) (“A district court . . . has broad discretion to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process.”); see also Int’l Transactions, Ltd. v. Embotelladora Agral Regionmontana SA de CV, 277 F. Supp.2d 654, 665 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
International Transactions, Ltd. v. Embotelladora Agral Regionmontana S.A. De C.V.
See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645-46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994) (holding district court has broad discretion to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiffs third motion to extend the time within which to accomplish service on a Mexican defendant); Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 30 (3rd Cir.1992) (“Upon determining that process has not been properly served on a defendant, district courts possess broad discretion to either dismiss th…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gazes v. DelPrete (In Re Clinton Street Food Corp.)
See Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc. (In re International Nutronics, Inc.), 28 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); Gumport v. China Int’l Trust and Investment Corp. (In re Intermagnetics America, Inc.), 926 F.2d 912, 917 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greg and Paige Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P.
See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Found. v. Mauro, 21 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.) (holding that § 1441(c) does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greg and Paige EASTUS v. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P
See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Found. v. Mauro, 21 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.) (holding that § 1441(c) does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Heap
P. 12(b)(5); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S. Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994). “[T]o achieve proper service for purposes of Rule 12(b)(5), a party must follow the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rhodes v. J.P.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Lawrence, Debtor. Barbara C. Lawrence Lawrence Group, Inc. Lawrence United Corp. Insurance Agency of Southern California, Inc. A.W. Lawrence and Company Lawrence Agency Corp. Lawrence United Corporation Lawrence Health Care Administrative Services, Inc. Global Insurance Company and Senate Insurance Company v. Stephen P. Wink Peter Barton J. Anthony Boeckh Robert Campbell Dale W. Church Tom Curran Edward A. Dohring Sharon Duker Brian Enright John Fedele Walter M. Fiederowicz Goldberg Charitable Trust Alan P. Goldberg Libby Goldberg Robert J. Higgins Dan Hogan Hugh A. Johnson, Jr. Ken Leichman Michael Lindburg Michael Lounsberry Louise Lounsberry Michael D. Marvin Martin J. Mastroianni Patricia Mastroianni Daniel v. McNamee III George C. McNamee Kathleen McNamee Art Murphy E. Dennis O'COnnOr Maureen O'COnnOr Seymour Pearlman John Puig Bob Schock Charles L. Schwager Beni Sternlicht Edward Swyer Thomas Vierengel Timothy R. Welles David Wood Mechanical Technology, Inc. First Albany Companies, Inc., John Does 1-50 Jane Does 1-50
Sept. 8, 2001). 3 See In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2001) (citing cases involving bankruptcy court orders approving sales of property of estate for proposition that "some orders of bankruptcy courts... are final judgments, which, if not timely appealed (or timely challenged under [Rule 60(b)]), are entitled to res judicata effect."); see also Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Services, Inc., 124 F.3d 82, 88-89 (2d Cir.1997) (special consideration in bankruptcy context is whether new action will "impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or ef…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence v. Wink (In re Lawrence)
See In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2001) (citing cases involving bankruptcy court orders approving sales of property of estate for proposition that "some orders of bankruptcy courts ... are final judgments, which, if not timely appealed (or timely challenged under [Rule 60(b) ]), are entitled to res judicata effect.”); see also Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Services, Inc., 124 F.3d 82, 88-89 (2d Cir.1997) (special consideration in bankruptcy context is whether new action will "impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or effectiveness of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.E. Texas One-Barrington, Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Ethex Corp.
See 28 U.S.C. § 686 (b)(1) (a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 684, 646 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mario Alonso Marquez-Ramos v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States
Rather, as would be expected, we start “ Svith the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used.’ ” Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 534 , 111 S.Ct. 1489, 1493 , 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991) (quoting Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 , 108 S.Ct. 2104, 2108 , 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988) (further quotations omitted)); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 638 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jerome ROBERTSON, Chapter 7 Trustee of International Nutronics, Inc.
v.
ISOMEDIX, INC.
v.
ISOMEDIX, INC.
No. 94-576.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1994.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)
[*578] Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.