green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
4.8 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Teahan I”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
City of Sioux Falls v. Miller
But see Teahan v. Metro-North Commuter RR Co., 951 F.2d 511 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 815 , 113 S.Ct. 54 , 121 L.Ed.2d 24 (1992) (alcoholic discharged for excessive absenteeism created a genuine issue of material fact about whether discharge was causally related to his disability).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Amego, Inc.
In this respect, the Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit that it is well beyond the salutary purpose of the ADA to “adopt an interpretation of the statute which would require an employer to accept the egregious behavior” of a disabled employee “when that same behavior, exhibited by a nondisabled employee, would require termination.” Williams v. Widnall, 79 F.3d 1003, 1007 (10th Cir.1996); see also Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 906-07 (9th Cir.1996); Siefken v. Village of Arlington Heights, 65 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir.1995); Maddox v. University of Tennessee, 62 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir.1…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Imran A. Mir
hat the attorney general may choose to share the forfeited property with a local law enforcement agency is inadequate to show that the united states government, which no doubt has its own interest in the proceeds, is here acting as a 'cover' for .
discussed
Cited "see"
Whitlatch v. Senkowski
Nonetheless, case law reflects that a habeas court should not defer to a state sentence “in extreme circumstances such as where the punishment is barbaric or vastly disproportionate to the crime committed.” Salcedo v. Artuz, 107 F.Supp.2d 405, 414 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (citing, inter alia, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. at 290 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (finding sentence of life without possibility of parole disproportionate to crime of uttering a “no account” check for $100); accord United States v. Certain Real Prop. & Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, Babylon, N.Y., 954 F.2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
Pressley v. Bennett
A court should not defer to a state sentence, however, “in extreme circumstances such as where the punishment is barbaric or vastly disproportionate to the crime committed.” Salcedo v. Artuz, 107 F.Supp.2d 405, 414 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (citing cases); accord United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, Babylon, N.Y., 954 F.2d 29, 38 (2d Cir.1992) (“The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prevents the imposition of a punishment which is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime committed.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 815 , 113 S.Ct. 55 …
cited
Cited "see"
Gedney v. Board of Education
See Teahan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 951 F.2d 511, 517 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 815 , 113 S. Ct. 54 , 121 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott
See United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Dr., Babylon, N.Y., 954 F.2d 29, 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Levin v. United States, 506 U.S. 815 , 113 S.Ct. 55 , 121 L.Ed.2d 24 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ye Wen Hong v. United States
See United States v. 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 954 F.2d 29, 35-36 (2d Cir.) (holding that forfeitures which serve legitimate civil purposes, such as removing instrumentalities of crime from use, or compensating the government for investigative and enforcement expenses, are not punishment), ce rt. denied, 506 U.S. 815 , 113 S.Ct. 55 , 121 L.Ed.2d 24 (1992); United States v. $145,139, 18 F.3d 73 , 75 (2d Cir.) (holding that forfeiture of currency was not punishment because the currency was the instrumentality of a crime), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 72 , 130 L.Ed.2d 27 (1994); United States…
cited
Cited "see"
Sixth Amendment Implications of Law Enforcement Contact with Corporate Executives
See U nited States v. 38 W hal ers C ove D rive, 954 F.2d 29, 35 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 506 U.S. 815 (1992); U nited S tates v. N evada P ow er Co., 31 E nv’t Rep.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guzman Rivera
See, e.g., _______ ___ ____ United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 _____________ ________________________________________________ Whalers Cove Dr., 954 F.2d 29, 38 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, ________________ _____ ______ 506 U.S. 815 (1992); United States v. Raymer, 941 F.2d 1031 , 1037 _____________ ______ (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Louisville Edible Oil Prods., _____________ ______________________________ Inc., 926 F.2d 584 , 587-88 (6th Cir. 1991); In re Kunstler, 914 ____ _______________ F.2d 505, 517 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 969 (1991); _…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Drilake Farms, Inc.
v.
Surrillo
v.
Surrillo
No. 91-1208.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
506 U.S. 815
Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1) · Ninth Circuit (1)
Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.