green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.5 score
“congress certainly never intended a judicial investigating committee to be beholden to the attorney general for permission to seek the information it needs.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Seymour Vigman
(2×)
But see In re Financial Corp. of America, 796 F.2d at 1130 (insufficient that defendant “ ‘has committed a proscribed act in a transaction of which the pledge of a security is a part’ ”) (quoting Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984)). c.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Representation of the United States Sentencing Commission in Litigation
congress certainly never intended a judicial investigating committee to be beholden to the attorney general for permission to seek the information it needs.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ellis
See generally United States v. Sadosky, 732 F.2d 1388, 1393 (8th Cir.) (“We note that these factual observations of the law enforcement agents are to be viewed as a whole and in light of the familiarity these agents have with the practices of narcotics couriers.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 254 , 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerome Ellis
See generally United States v. Sadosky, 732 F.2d 1388, 1393 (8th Cir.) ("We note that these factual observations of the law enforcement agents are to be viewed as a whole and in light of the familiarity these agents have with the practices of narcotics couriers."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Justin Robinson v. The Government Of Malaysia
See Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co., 544 F.2d 1126, 1130-31 (2d Cir. 1976) (discussing differences between Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motions), modified on other grounds, Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen Co., 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 (1984). 7 The defendant must first "present[] a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign," Cargill Int'l, 991 F.3d at 1016, but because, in this case, the plaintiff concedes that the defendant is a foreign sovereign, that is not an issue here. 8 According to decisions of other courts, the defendant must sho…
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Government of Malaysia
(2×)
See Exchange Nat’l Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co., 544 F.2d 1126, 1130-31 (2d Cir.1976) (discussing differences between Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motions), modified on other grounds, Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen Co., 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gigliotti v. Mathys
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984) ("misrepresentation . .. not pertaining to the securities themselves" cannot be the basis of a section 10(b) violation); see also A.T.
discussed
Cited "see"
Production Resource Group, L.L.C. v. Stonebridge Partners Equity Fund, L.P.
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mistretta v. Prokesch
(2×)
See Konik v. Champlain Valley Physicians, 733 F.2d 1007 , 1013 n. 4 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984) (“in connection with” requires showing of both transaction causation and loss causation); Alpha Group Consultants Ltd. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 1994 WL 561817 , *3 (S.D.Cal.) (same); Horwitz v. AGS Columbia Assocs., 700 F.Supp. 712, 721 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (same); Kearney v. Prudential-Bache Secs., Inc., 701 F.Supp. 416 , 425 n. 10 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (interpreting Chemical Bank to hold that “in connection with” test requires a showing of loss causation …
discussed
Cited "see"
Westphal v. Catch Ball Products Corp.
(2×)
See Exchange National Bank v. Touche Ross & Co., 544 F.2d 1126, 1130-31 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bissell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levitin v. PaineWebber, Inc.
(2×)
The alleged misrepresentation or omission must be made “in, connection with the purchase or sale” of a security. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5; see Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation
(2×)
See Rand v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc., 794 F.2d 843, 847 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 987 , 107 S.Ct. 579 , 93 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986) (citing Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 942 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984)); In re Leslie Fay Cos., Inc. Securities Litigation, 871 F.Supp. 686 , 697 n. 10 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Conner, J.).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Blech Securities Litigation
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
AUSA Life Insurance v. Dwyer
(2×)
See Rand v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc., 794 F.2d 843, 847 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 987 , 107 S.Ct. 579 , 93 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986) (citing Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 942 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984)); In re Leslie Fay Cos., Inc. Securities Litigation, 871 F.Supp. 686 , 697 n. 10 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Conner, J.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jakubowski
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984) (corporation misstated its financial condition to secure bank loan; bank loan was secured in part by pledge of stock *1087 in corporation's subsidiary), Hunt v. Robinson, 852 F.2d 786 (4th Cir.1988) (employer refused to honor earlier promise to tender securities to employee as part of employment contract), and Citibank, N.A. v. K-H Corp., 745 F.Supp. 899 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (in commercial lending transaction, sole shareholder of corporation misrepresented ability to…
cited
Cited "see"
Hanrahan v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth
Accord, Mayoral v. Jeffco American Baptist Residences, Inc., 726 F.2d 1361 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 106 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984); Gonzalez v. St.
discussed
Cited "see"
DeSalle v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Griffin v. McNiff
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943, n. 23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 683 F.Supp. 1463, 1474-76 (S.D.N.Y.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Epstein v. Haas Securities Corp.
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael J. Corbitt, Pulitzer Community Newspapers, Inc., Intervenor-Appellee
See generally United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983) (IRS investigation to determine individual’s tax liability is not "preliminar[y] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding”). .One court of appeals has suggested that Rule 6(e) does not limit the "inherent authority” of the district court to order disclosure in other “exceptional circumstances.” See In re Petition to Inspect & Copy Grand Jury Materials (Hastings), 735 F.2d 1261, 1269 (11th Cir.) (approving disclosure to judicial panel investigating possible misconduct by federal judge, e…
discussed
Cited "see"
Huang v. Sentinel Government Securities
(2×)
See generally Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930 , 943 n. 23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Carlos Manuel Hernandez
See United States v. Sadosky, 732 F.2d 1388 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 254 , 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984); United States v. Ilazi, 730 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Large, 729 F.2d 636 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Wallraff, 705 F.2d 980 (8th Cir.1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Kenneth J. Wilson v. Ruffa & Hanover, P.C.
(4×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930 , 943 & n. 23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (U.S.A.)
(2×)
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 945 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury No. 81-1, Miami. Appeal of Judge Alcee L. Hastings
(2×)
See In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 254 , 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Walker
If Walker did not wish to proceed to the other rooms of his *298 house, the police could not “lead [him] from place to place and use his presence in each location to justify [their presence there].” United States v. Griffith, 537 F.2d 900, 904 (7th Cir.1976); accord United States v. Hill, 730 F.2d 1163, 1167 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984); United States v. Mason, 523 F.2d 1122, 1126 (D.C.Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez v. People
(2×)
See State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa) (use of defense expert in state’s case-in-chief did not violate the sixth amendment), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Gas Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 552 F.Supp. 439 (S.D.N.Y.1982), rev’d on other grounds, 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); IIT, 619 F.2d at 923-24 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wheeler
(2×)
See State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668, 680 (Iowa), cert. denied 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Westmac, Inc. v. Lon Smith
See Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 734 F.2d 1157, 1162-63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Westmac, Inc. v. Smith
See Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 734 F.2d 1157, 1162-63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 941-42, 944-45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); cf. United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768 , 773 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 2077 , 2081-82 n. 4, 60 L.Ed.2d 624 (1979) (”[W]e are not necessarily persuaded that ‘in’ is narrower than 'in connection with.’ ”) The New Mexico statute closely tracks the language of Rule 10b-5, except for the absence from the statute of a jurisdictional act requirement.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,024 Futura Development Corporation v. Centex Corporation
See Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen and Co., 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); Exchange National Bank v. Touche Ross and Co., 544 F.2d 1126 (2d Cir.1976.) As might be expected, the conceptual basis of the three tests and the considerations examined by the courts in applying the tests tend to be very similar although the focus is slightly different.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Blair Justin Greiman v. John A. Thalacker
See Iowa Code Ann. § 701.4 ; see also, e.g., State v. -4- Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668, 679 (Iowa 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 (1984), and State v. Hamann, 285 N.W.2d 180, 182 (Iowa 1979) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blair Justin Greiman, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. John A. Thalacker, Warden, Appellant/cross-Appellee
See Iowa Code Ann. § 701.4 ; see also, e.g., State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668, 679 (Iowa 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984), and State v. Hamann, 285 N.W.2d 180, 182 (Iowa 1979) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marilyn GALDIERI-AMBROSINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Konik v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital Medical Center, 733 F.2d 1007 , 1013 n. 4 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp., “Huguenot”, 618 F.2d 163 , 166 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re John H. McBryde U.S. District Judge
(2×)
See, e.g., Henry v. United States, 432 F.2d 114, 119-20 (9th Cir.1970) (“It is true that members of a Court of Appeals, meeting as a Judicial Council, exercise certain supervisory powers for the expeditious administration of the business of the courts within its circuit, but they act as a council, not a court.”), modified, 434 F.2d 1283 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1011 , 91 S.Ct. 576 , 27 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971); see also In re Petition to Inspect & Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261, 1271 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 254 , 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Feminella
(2×)
Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 477-78 , 97 S.Ct. 1292, 1302-03 , 51 L.Ed.2d 480 (1977); see also Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., 770 F.Supp. 176, 180 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (“the relevant inquiry is whether defendants’ alleged fraud deprived plaintiff of information that might have been useful to it in deciding whether to purchase or sell securities which it actually did purchase or sell”).' In Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984), the Second…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Audell Petroleum Corp. v. Suburban Paraco Corp.
(2×)
Compare Blaine v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 1107, 1113 (D.Conn.1987) (allegation of anticompetitive effect not required because such effects are presumed) and Nordic Bank PLC v. Trend Group, Ltd., 619 F.Supp. 542, 558 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (allegation of anticompetitive effects not required) with Telerate Sys., Inc., 689 F.Supp. at 234 (anticompetitive effects as distinct element), Posa, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 642 F.Supp. 1198, 1209 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (distinct element), and Consolidated Terminal Sys., 535 F.Supp. at 231 ; see also Gonzalez, 880 F.2d at 1516-17 (anticompetiti…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ruben Perea
See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 730 F.2d 1163, 1167 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 255 , 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984); United States v. Wright, 577 F.2d 378, 381 (6th Cir.1978); United States v. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco Espanol De Credito Banesto Banking Corporation Banco Totta & Acores Girozentrale Und Bank Der Osterreichischen Sparkassen Ag Harmony Gold Ltd. Hong Kong International Commercial Bank of China Monroe Bank & Trust Phelps Dodge Corporation Saudi American Bank State Street Bank & Trust Company, as Master Trustee for the Retirement Plans of Atlantic Richfield Company and Certain of Its Subsidiaries v. Security Pacific National Bank Security Pacific Merchant Bank, Hachijuni Bank, Ltd. v. Security Pacific National Bank Security Pacific Merchant Bank
(2×)
See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 65 , 110 S.Ct. 945, 951 , 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990) (citing Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco Espanol de Credito v. Security Pacific National Bank
(2×)
See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 65 , 110 S.Ct. 945, 951 , 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990) (citing Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Varnberg v. Minnick
(2×)
See also Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 938 (2d Cir.) (context required that replacement notes evidencing loans by commercial banks to finance current operations of borrower not be deemed “securities”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984). 29 A party such as Gail or Robert Varnberg asserting that a given note with a maturity of less than nine months is within the 1934 Act has the burden of demonstrating that “the context otherwise requires.” Exchange Nat’l Bank, 544 F.2d at 1137-38 (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Parnell Riley, Jr.
Instead, when evaluating whether officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, a court must consider “the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417 , 101 S.Ct. at 695 . “[W]e view the observations of law enforcement officers as a whole and in light of their training and experience in discerning the practices of drug couriers.” Pantazis, 816 F.2d at 363 ; see also United States v. Sadosky, 732 F.2d 1388, 1393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 254 , 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arnold R. Vasbinder, Cross-Appellee v. Gordon Ambach, Basil Y. Scott, and Richard M. Switzer, Basil Y. Scott and Richard M. Switzer, Cross-Appellants
(2×)
See, e.g., Konik v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital Medical Center, 733 F.2d 1007 , 1013 n. 4 (2d Cir.) (quoting Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp., “Huguenot”, 618 F.2d at 166 & n. 2), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984); Ebker v. Tan Jay International, Ltd., 739 F.2d 812 , 824 n. 15 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caucus Distributors, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce & Economic Development, Division of Banking, Securities & Corporations
(2×)
See also Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 939 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984) (adding to the laundry list a commercial bank loan to finance current operations of a borrower’s business); Equitable Life Assur.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caucus Distributors v. DEPT. OF COMMERCE
(2×)
See also Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 939 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984) (adding to the laundry list a commercial bank loan to finance current operations of a borrower's business); Equitable Life Assur.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gurwara v. Lyphomed, Inc.
(2×)
See also, Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 943 (2nd Cir.1984) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 884 , 105 S.Ct. 253 , 83 L.Ed.2d 190 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chemical Bank
v.
Arthur Andersen & Co.
v.
Arthur Andersen & Co.
No. 84-264.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1984.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Office of Legal Counsel (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.