green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Plater v. Topping
If this burden is met, the non-movant must come forward with specific facts, supported by admissible evidence, which demonstrate the presence of a genuine issue for trial. , 962 F.2d 2 1517, 1526 n.11 (10th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Browning v. USA
(2×)
“The summons power of the IRS under the Code is quite broad, and courts are constrained to exercise caution before circumscribing the summons authority.” PAA Mgm’t, Ltd., 962 F.2d at 216.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bassam v. American Airlines
See Chukwuma v. Groupe Air France, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 43, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (providing that, under the Warsaw Convention, to presume willful misconduct “solely on the basis of the fact that some of his luggage was lost or stolen [is] a presumption that would severely undercut Article 22’s limitations of liability”), aff'd, 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
NORTHERN TANKERS (CYPRUS) LTD. v. Backstrom
See Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 704 F.Supp. 392, 410-11 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (dismissing a claim for gross negligence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 922 F.2d 60 (2d Cir.1990), after remand, 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1222 , 112 S.Ct. 3036 , 120 L.Ed.2d 905 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tseng v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.
See Chukwuma v. Groupe Air France, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 43, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (to presume willful misconduct "solely on the basis of the fact that some of his luggage was lost or stolen” is "a presumption that would severely undercut Article 22's limitations of liability”), aff'd, 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Stola v. Joint Industry Board
See Granoff v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 775 F.Supp. 621, 626-27 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff 'd without opinion, 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1992); Herrera v. Scully, 815 F.Supp. 713, 727 (S.D.N.Y.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Iyegha v. United Airlines, Inc.
See Chukwuma v. Groupe Air France, Inc. , 767 F. Supp. 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff'd , 962 F.2d 2 (1992) (willful conduct cannot be presumed on the basis that passenger's checked luggage was lost or stolen); Royal Ins. v. Amerford Air Cargo , 654 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (an unexplained loss of goods did not establish willful misconduct, particularly where the airline submitted evidence of its security measures).
cited
Cited "see"
Piasecki v. Daughters of Jacob Nursing Home, Inc.
See Camillo v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 776 F.Supp. 662 (N.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd without op., 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Siben v. American Airlines, Inc.
See Vekris v. Peoples Express Airlines, Inc., 707 F.Supp. 675, 678 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Gill v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 620 F.Supp. 1453, 1456 (E.D.N.Y.1985); Kupferman v. Pakistan International Airlines, 108 Misc.2d 485 , 438 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Civ.Ct.1981) (regarding noncompliance with 4(3)(f)); see also Chukwuma v. Groupe Air France, 767 F.Supp. 43, 47 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (adopting the standard, but finding that 4(4) did not apply in light of the facts of the case), aff'd 962 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bolecek
v.
Nyc Board of Ed
v.
Nyc Board of Ed
91-7471.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 24, 1992.
Published
Bolecek
v.
NYC Board of Ed.
NO. 91-7471
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Feb 24, 1992
1
Appeal From: E.D.N.Y.; Appealing after remand 946 F.2d 882
2
REMANDED.