green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.0 score
“the mere ct of signing such a guaranty or endorsement does not in and of itself constitute a sufficient contact upon which to base in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident.”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Roger C. Johnson, Cross-Appellant v. Albert Franco, Shannon J. Wall, Martin F. Hickley, Cross-Appellees
Brewery Employees’ Pension Trust Fund, 670 F.2d 387, 397 (3rd Cir.1982); Roark v. Lewis, 401 F.2d 425, 426-27 (D.C.Cir.1968); but cf. Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of the Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 254-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
J&L Farms, Inc. v. Jackman Florida Wagyu Beef, LLC
the mere ct of signing such a guaranty or endorsement does not in and of itself constitute a sufficient contact upon which to base in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pacelli v. United States
thus, the petition that was employed to support the claim that petitioners were entitled to a hearing was essentially predicated on conjecture and speculation
cited
Cited "see"
In Re the Wage & Hour Violation of Kokesch
See Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment Co., Inc., 527 F.2d 1308, 1311 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 82 , 50 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Teamsters Local No. 145 v. Kuba
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of the Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 256 (2d Cir.) (Feinberg, J.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976) (“[i]t is not necessary for us ... to*agree with plaintiff’s interpretation [of the ‘sole and exclusive benefit’ of the employees requirement of Section 302(c)(5) ] in order to have jurisdiction to decide the case; so long as plaintiff’s claim that the section has been violated is not ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ ... jurisdiction exists”) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Uni-Bond, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. National Steel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Kasle Steel Company, a Michigan Corporation
United States v. Amerine, 411 F.2d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1969); accord Barry v. United States, 528 F.2d 1094 , 1097 n.7 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Computer Sciences Corp.
See United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804, 805 (D.Mass.1975), aff’d without opinion, 530 F.2d 962 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 80 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Computer Sciences Corporation, John W. Luke, Erwin L. Allen, Thomas A. Marti, Norman W. Derrick, Peter C. Loux, Herbert G. Blecker, United States of America v. Computer Sciences Corporation, John W. Luke, Erwin L. Allen, Thomas A. Marti, Norman W. Derrick, Peter C. Loux, Herbert G. Blecker
See United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804, 805 (D.Mass.1975), aff'd without opinion, 530 F.2d 962 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 80 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976). 21 The case before us, in short, is one where there has been no intrusion of significant duration nor any showing of deliberate rule disregard by the government or prejudice to the defendant. 6 Life must go on.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board (Local 2, U.S.)
Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 570 F.2d 406, 412-13 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.); accord, Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund, 529 F.2d 251, 255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. JOINT PLUMBING INDUSTRY BD., ETC.
See also Agro v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board, 471 F.Supp. 856 (S.D.N.Y.1979). [5] 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5). [6] Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 570 F.2d 406, 412-13 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.); accord, Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund, 529 F.2d 251, 255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976). [7] We cannot review the application of these rules to an individual claimant under federal law.
cited
Cited "see"
Knauss v. Gorman
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund, 529 F.2d at 255 , cert. denied 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed. 88 (2d Cir. 1976); Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 570 F.2d 406, 413 (2d Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Knauss v. Gorman
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund, 529 F.2d at 255 , Cert. denied 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed. 88 (2d Cir. 1976); Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 570 F.2d 406, 413 (2d Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited "see"
William J. Riley v. Meba Pension Trust
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 254-55 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cliff J. Wilson v. Board of Trustees of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund, 388 F.Supp. 997 (E.D.N.Y.1975), aff’d, 529 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976); Insley v. Joyce, 330 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ill.1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mosley v. National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan
See Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of the Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 254-55 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976); Bowers v. Ulpiano Casal, Inc., 393 F.2d 421, 425 (1st Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vancol
See also Barry v. United States, 528 F.2d 1094, 1101-02 (7th Cir.) (insufficiently detailed affidavit that did not demonstrate that petitioners had actual proof of allegations is “patently insufficient” to require hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer
See also Barry v. United States, 528 F.2d 1094, 1101-02 (7th Cir.) (insufficiently detailed affidavit that did not demonstrate that petitioners had actual proof of allegations is “patently insufficient” to require hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Mr. W Fireworks, Inc.
See, e.g., Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment Co., 527 F.2d 1308, 1311 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 82 , 50 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976); Robicheaux v. Radcliff Material, Inc., 697 F.2d 662, 666 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pacific Atlantic Trading Co., Inc. v. The M/V Main Express
Id. 6 The applicable California jurisdictional statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Sec. 410.10 (West 1973), states that "[a] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." The jurisdiction of the California state courts has therefore been construed to be "coextensive with the outer limits of due process ... as ... defined by the United States Supreme Court." Threlkeld v. Tucker, 496 F.2d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1023 , 95 S.Ct. 499 , 42 L.Ed.2d 297 (1974); see also Sibley v. Superior Court, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. The M/V Main Express
The applicable California jurisdictional statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 410.10 (West 1973), states that “[a] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” The jurisdiction of the California state courts has therefore been construed to be “coextensive with the outer limits of due process ... as ... defined by the United States Supreme Court.” Threlkeld v. Tucker, 496 F.2d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1023 , 95 S.Ct. 499 , 42 L.Ed.2d 297 (1974); see also Sibley v. Superior Court, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Iron Workers Local v. Bowen
See, e. g., Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of the Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976); Bowers v. Moreno, 520 F.2d 843, 845-46 (1st Cir. 1975); Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156 , 165 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 874 , 96 S.Ct. 143 , 46 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975); Hutchinson, The Federal Prudent Man Rule under ERISA, 22 Vill.L.Rev. 15, 18-19 (1976) 4 Cf. Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America, 556 F.2d 190, 200-06 (3d Cir. 1977) (§ 302 may provide a basis for implying a damage remedy), cert. denied, 434 U…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Iron Workers Local 272 v. Bowen
See, e. g., Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of the Illumination Products Industry, 529 F.2d 251, 255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 , 97 S.Ct. 81 , 50 L.Ed.2d 88 (1976); Bowers v. Moreno, 520 F.2d 843, 845-46 (1st Cir. 1975); Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156, 165 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 874 , 96 S.Ct. 143 , 46 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) ; Hutchinson, The Federal Prudent Man Rule under ERISA, 22 Vill.L.Rev. 15, 18-19 (1976) . .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Vallario v. State Roads Commission
See also Smart v. Texas Power and Light Co., 525 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826 (1976) (the rule of waiver by acceptance of award is not unconstitutional).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wright Motors, Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 75-1703.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
429 U.S. 826
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1) · South Dakota Supreme Court (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.