Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. M v. Egasco Star, Egypt Azov Shipping Co., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 104 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. M v. Egasco Star, Egypt Azov Shipping Co., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 104 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ven in dismissing a complaint that states no claim on which relief can be granted, the court should normally give the plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend the complaint.”
73 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Farris v. The Orvis Company, Inc. (vtd, 2022-10-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Farris v. The Orvis Company, Inc.
D. Vt. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ven in dismissing a complaint that states no claim on which relief can be granted, the court should normally give the plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend the complaint.
discussed Cited "see" Garcia v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaoul v. United States, 104 F.3d 351 , 1996 WL 626350, at *3 (2nd Cir. Oct.30, 1996); United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5K2.13 (“[a] sentence below the applicable guideline range may be warranted if the defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity ...
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Olivia Miller, Inc., 139 Fed.Appx. 301, 304 (2d Cir.2005) (summary order) (quoting Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534 , 114 S.Ct. 1023 ); see also Clark v. Hudson Bay Music, Inc., 104 F.3d 351 , 351 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion); N.A.S.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
v.
M v. Egasco Star, Egypt Azov Shipping Co., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
96-7441.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 21, 1996.
104 F.3d 351
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: D. Vermont (1)

104 F.3d 351

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
NIPPON FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v.
M.V. EGASCO STAR, Defendant,
EGYPT AZOV SHIPPING CO., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 96-7441(L), 96-7481(XAP).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, Judge).

Appearing for Appellant: Joseph F. De May, Jr., Cichanowicz, Callan & Keane, New York, New York.

Appearing for Appellee: David T. Maloof, Maloof & Browne, New York, New York.

S.D.N.Y.

AFFIRMED.

Present Honorable GRAAFEILAND, Honorable WINTER and Honorable ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.

1

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued.

2

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.

3

Egypt Azov Shipping Co. appeals from Judge Chin's entry of a default judgment against them for their failure to comply with his discovery orders. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Chin's opinions. Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. M.V. Egasco Star, 94 Civ. 6813(DC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 1996); Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. M.V. Egasco Star, 94 Civ. 6813(DC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1996); see also Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. M.V. Egasco Star, 899 F.Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y.1995).

4

Because we affirm, we dismiss plaintiff's cross-appeal, Docket No. 96-7481, as moot.

5

A mandate shall issue forthwith.