green
Positive treatment
9.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Israel Rios v. Nandakumar Ravi and Joseph Dragon
Neither 28 Defendant raised any objections to the Court taking judicial notice at oral argument. 1 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 2 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 3 amendment, [or] futility of amendment” leave must be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 4 178, 182 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Meyer v. Seidel
However, 3 leave need not be granted in cases of "futility of amendment." Foman, 371 U.S. 4 at 182.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Penney Prop. Sub Holdings LLC v. Town of Amherst
Corp. , 59 AD3d 312, 321 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 713 [2009], rearg denied 14 NY3d 748 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cannata v City of New York , 14 AD2d 813 , 813 [2d Dept 1961], affd 11 NY2d 210 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 4 [1962]; see generally Yonkers Community Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jo & Wo Realty Corp. v. City of New York
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
(Supra, at 483; see, Cannata v City of New York, 11 NY2d 210, 213 , appeal dismissed 371 US 4 .) These are precisely the factors, supported by a voluminous public record, that the Board of Estimate considered in determining that the new Javits Convention Center rendered the Coliseum outmoded, underbuilt and unutilized and that such obsolescence would have an adverse effect on the surrounding area.
discussed
Cited "see"
Musicians Union, Local No. 6 v. Superior Court
“The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, ...” ( 29 U.S.C.A. §152 (3); see Waxman v. Virginia (1962) 371 U.S. 4 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 50 , 83 S.Ct 46 ], revg. 203 Va. 257 [ 123 S.E.2d 381 ]; N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox *709 Co. (1956) 351 U.S. 105, 111-113 [ 100 L.Ed. 975, 982-983 , 76 S.Ct. 697]; Marshall Field & Co. v. N.L.R.B. (7th Cir. 1952) 200 F.2d 375, 379-380 .) Moreover, “ [t]he term ‘labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the associatio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Theatrical Stage Employees Union, Local 16
The fact that the picketing members of Local 16 were not employees of Consolidated does not necessarily deny them the protection of section 7 of the Act ( 29 U.S.C.A. § 152 (3); see Waxman v. Virginia (1962) 371 U.S. 4 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 50 , 83 S.Ct. 46 ], revg. 203 Va. 257 [ 123 S.E.2d 381 ].) We also consider it “arguable” that the activities of the union were prohibited by the so-called “featherbedding” provisions found in section 8(b) (6) of the Act: “(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents'—■ . . . (6) to cause or attempt to cause an employ…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WAXMAN Et Al.
v.
VIRGINIA
v.
VIRGINIA
274.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
Morris P. Glushien for appellants., Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, and Kenneth C. Patty and D. Gardiner Tyler, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Goldberg.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The judgments are reversed. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or .decision of this case.