green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Pelletier v. InterBank
See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S. Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994) (“A district court . . . has broad discretion to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process.”); see also Int’l Transactions, Ltd. v. Embotelladora Agral Regionmontana SA de CV, 277 F. Supp.2d 654, 665 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Krusen v. Moss
As a public figure, plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant made the alleged defamatory statements with actual malice — i.e., "with knowledge that [they were] false or with reckless disregard of whether [they were] false or not" ( Kipper v NYP Holdings Co., Inc. , 12 NY3d 348, 353-354 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Freeman v Johnston , 84 NY2d 52, 56 [1994], cert denied 513 US 1016 [1994]).
discussed
Cited "see"
RESZKA, ELIZABETH v. COLLINS, COUNCILMAN JOSEPH A.
Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, the first counterclaim also adequately states that plaintiff acted with actual malice, which is a required element for a defamation claim brought by a public official (see Silsdorf v Levine, 59 NY2d 8, 17 [1983], cert denied 464 US 831 [1983]; see generally Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52, 56 [1994], cert denied 513 US 1016 [1994]).
discussed
Cited "see"
International Transactions, Ltd. v. Embotelladora Agral Regionmontana S.A. De C.V.
See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645-46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994) (holding district court has broad discretion to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiffs third motion to extend the time within which to accomplish service on a Mexican defendant); Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 30 (3rd Cir.1992) (“Upon determining that process has not been properly served on a defendant, district courts possess broad discretion to either dismiss th…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gazes v. DelPrete (In Re Clinton Street Food Corp.)
See Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc. (In re International Nutronics, Inc.), 28 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); Gumport v. China Int’l Trust and Investment Corp. (In re Intermagnetics America, Inc.), 926 F.2d 912, 917 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BlueEarth Marine, LLC v. Cam
See also Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc. (In re Int’l Nutronics), 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc., 513 U.S. 1016 (1994) (matters concerning estate administration are core).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Heap
P. 12(b)(5); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S. Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994). “[T]o achieve proper service for purposes of Rule 12(b)(5), a party must follow the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rhodes v. J.P.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott Laboratories v. City of Hope
See also Conservolite, Inc. v. Widmayer, 21 F.3d 1098, 1102 (Fed.Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 576 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence v. Wink (In re Lawrence)
See In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2001) (citing cases involving bankruptcy court orders approving sales of property of estate for proposition that "some orders of bankruptcy courts ... are final judgments, which, if not timely appealed (or timely challenged under [Rule 60(b) ]), are entitled to res judicata effect.”); see also Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Services, Inc., 124 F.3d 82, 88-89 (2d Cir.1997) (special consideration in bankruptcy context is whether new action will "impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or effectiveness of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Lawrence, Debtor. Barbara C. Lawrence Lawrence Group, Inc. Lawrence United Corp. Insurance Agency of Southern California, Inc. A.W. Lawrence and Company Lawrence Agency Corp. Lawrence United Corporation Lawrence Health Care Administrative Services, Inc. Global Insurance Company and Senate Insurance Company v. Stephen P. Wink Peter Barton J. Anthony Boeckh Robert Campbell Dale W. Church Tom Curran Edward A. Dohring Sharon Duker Brian Enright John Fedele Walter M. Fiederowicz Goldberg Charitable Trust Alan P. Goldberg Libby Goldberg Robert J. Higgins Dan Hogan Hugh A. Johnson, Jr. Ken Leichman Michael Lindburg Michael Lounsberry Louise Lounsberry Michael D. Marvin Martin J. Mastroianni Patricia Mastroianni Daniel v. McNamee III George C. McNamee Kathleen McNamee Art Murphy E. Dennis O'COnnOr Maureen O'COnnOr Seymour Pearlman John Puig Bob Schock Charles L. Schwager Beni Sternlicht Edward Swyer Thomas Vierengel Timothy R. Welles David Wood Mechanical Technology, Inc. First Albany Companies, Inc., John Does 1-50 Jane Does 1-50
Sept. 8, 2001). 3 See In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2001) (citing cases involving bankruptcy court orders approving sales of property of estate for proposition that "some orders of bankruptcy courts... are final judgments, which, if not timely appealed (or timely challenged under [Rule 60(b)]), are entitled to res judicata effect."); see also Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Services, Inc., 124 F.3d 82, 88-89 (2d Cir.1997) (special consideration in bankruptcy context is whether new action will "impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or ef…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
U.E. Texas One-Barrington, Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Ethex Corp.
See 28 U.S.C. § 686 (b)(1) (a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made); see also Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 684, 646 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 , 115 S.Ct. 577 , 130 L.Ed.2d 492 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Conservolite, Inc.
v.
Widmayer
v.
Widmayer
No. 94-513.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1994.
Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.