green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Lidia M. Orrego v. Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, et al.
See Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 , 540 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (sua sponte dismissing action with prejudice as frivolous as to all defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) even though only some defendants moved to dismiss), aff’d, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994). (affirming denial of leave to amend a second time on futility grounds in light of factual deficiencies).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas H. Stabb, Jr. v. Syracuse Police Department, et al.
Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.LY. 1993), affd, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Clark v. Hall
Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.LY. 1993), affd, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Swinea v. Peters
Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), affd, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The Plaintiff is advised that, despite being granted IFP status for this action, he is still required to pay any costs or fees he may incur in connection with this action. ?
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Johnson
See Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 , 540 v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 188-9 (5th Cir. 1986) (dismissal (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994); cf. Pillay v. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a dismissal on I.N.S., 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissing the merits); John Birch Soc'y. v. National Broadcasting Co., sua sponte appeal for which appellant had paid normal filing 377 F.2d 194 , 199 n.3 (2d Cir. 1967) (dismissal for lack of fee).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hamrick v. General Services Administration
(See ECF No. 55 at 4); see also Landmark West! v. U.S. Postal Serv., 840 F.Supp. 994, 1006 (S.D.N.Y.1993). aff'd, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir.1994) (“[T]he fact that a federal action is a ‘but for’ cause of a non-federal action does not, in itself, subject the non-federal action to NEPA.’).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Yeboah
v.
Yeboah
94-1127.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sep 7, 1994.
Published
U.S.
v.
Yeboah
NO. 94-1127
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Sept 07, 1994
Appeal From: E.D.N.Y. 92-cr-176
1
AFFIRMED.