green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dean v. City of Buffalo
an attorney's affidavit that is not based upon personal knowledge or supported by admissible evidence is insuffi 409 cient to defeat a summary judgment motion
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bauchelle v. AT & T CORP.
Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., (“MCT’), 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 *643 (1996). 3 In MCI, the plaintiff telephone company brought an action against a pay telephone owner, seeking to recover for unpaid services provided under the company’s tariffs.
discussed
Cited "see"
Global Naps, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1112 (3d Cir.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Mars Emergency Med.
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph Monti and Tita Monti v. United States
See Randell v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 103-04 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 65 , 136 L.Ed.2d 26 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morris v. Lenihan
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Princess Cruises, Inc. v. United States
See Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 739-41 , *1361 116 S.Ct. 1730 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (holding that neither an agency’s delay in promulgating a regulation nor the fqct that “it was litigation which disclosed the need for the regulation” affects the court’s deference to the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as embodied in such regulations).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca3 1998
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1092 (3d Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1992); Williams v. Guzzardi, 875 F.2d 46, 49 (3d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Polonski v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1092 (3d Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc. v. Ranson
(2×)
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1104 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Comcast Cellular Telecommunications Litigation
See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1093-96 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Neuner v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (In re Lymecare, Inc.)
(2×)
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re LymeCare, Inc.
(2×)
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996). [13] Plaintiffs' contention that Horizon failed to plead collateral estoppel is rejected.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sostre
(2×)
See, e.g., People v. Horton, 11 Cal. 4th *288 1068, 906 P.2d 478 , 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S. Ct. 63 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
(2×)
See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1093-96 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 815 , 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996); Nordlicht v. New York Tel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
IPCO Safety Corp. v. WorldCom, Inc.
See also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1103-04 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 64 , 136 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (holding that issues which implicate the utility’s tariff filed with the PUC are deemed to be within the primary jurisdiction of the PUC); National Comm. Ass’n.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mused v. United States of America Department of Agriculture Food & Nutrition Service
See McGann v. New York, 77 F.3d 672, 674-75 (2d Cir.1996) (dismissing pro se complaint for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C) even though defendant had actually received summons and complaint); Delicada v. Bowen, 116 F.R.D. 564, 566 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (to extent prejudice to defendant is a valid inquiry, it is only relevant where plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to make service); see also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir.1995) (“absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to excuse late service”), cert. denied, _…
Shong-Ching Tong
v.
Turner
v.
Turner
No. 95-1898.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.