Application of Carl Philips v. Newell Co., 118 F.3d 972 (2d Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Application of Carl Philips v. Newell Co., 118 F.3d 972 (2d Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 · …an issue of statutory interpretation, and because it involves the jurisdiction of the federal courts. at p. 977 ⚠ not in text
28 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Govt of VI v. Fahie
3rd Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the trial court sits in a unique position to evaluate . . . evidentiary and discovery questions, including the selection of 19 sanctions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nader Modanlo
4th Cir. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Gov’t of the V.I. v. Blake, 118 F.3d 972, 974 (3d Cir.1997) (recounting territorial trial court’s view that statutory appeal taken after commencement of criminal trial proceedings necessitated mistrial, rather than adjournment, because the “appeal would last too long to keep the same jury”). 9 Though not a criminal prosecution, the procedural posture of Stevens v. Tillman no doubt motivated the court of appeals to consider similar inherent inefficiencies, causing it to summarily dismiss as premature the plaintiffs notice of appeal filed at the conclusion of her case-in-chief.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) First American Development Group/Carib, LLC v. WestLB AG
virginislands · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Gov’t of the V.I. v. Hodge, 359 F.3d 312 , 320-21, 45 V.I. 738 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that former section 39, which governed appeals by the government, is ambiguous, and interpreting it in light of 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a)); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Blake, 118 F.3d 972, 975-76 (3d Cir. 1997) (same); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Warner, 48 F.3d 688, 692 , 31 V.I. 373 (3d Cir. 1995) (relying on 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a) to expand Appellate Division’s jurisdiction over appeals by criminal defendants beyond plain text of former section 33); Gov’t v. deJongh, 28 V.I. 153, 158-159 (D.V.I.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Government of the Virgin Islands v. Hodge (3×) also: Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
We held the merits of this certification to be a question for the court because it is “an issue of statutory interpretation, and because it involves the jurisdiction of the federal courts.” Blake, 118 F.3d at 977 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Government of the Virgin Islands v. Selvin Hodge, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ottice Bryan, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Kirsten Greenaway, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Eladio Camacho
3rd Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
We held the merits of this certification to be a question for the court because it is "an issue of statutory interpretation, and because it involves the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Blake, 118 F.3d at 977 (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ubiles
D.V.I. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Blake, 118 F.3d 972, 977 (3d Cir.1997); United States v. Maples, 60 F.3d 244, 246 (6th Cir.1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jareem Fahie
3rd Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Restrepo, 930 F.2d at 712 ; see also Govn’t of V.I. v. Blake, 118 F.3d 972, 978 (3d Cir.1997) (“[T]he trial court sits in a unique position to evaluate ... evidentiary and discovery questions, including the selection of sanctions.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Application of Carl Philips
v.
Newell Co.
2310.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 30, 1997.
118 F.3d 972
Published

118 F.3d 972

Application of Carl PHILIPS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEWELL CO., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2310, Docket 97-7559.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued July 15, 1997.
Decided July 30, 1997.

Appeal from a judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Peter K. Leisure, Judge.

Ronald J. Offenkrantz, New York City (Michael H. Smith, of counsel), for Petitioner-Appellant.

Barry S. Alberts, New York City (Robert J. Hoskins, Paul Scrudato, of counsel), for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, JACOBS and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal from Judge Leisure's denial of a petition to stay arbitration. We affirm for the reasons set forth in his opinion. Application of Carl Philips v. Newell Co., No. 96 CIV. 9153, 1997 WL 181191 (S.D.N.Y. April 15, 1997). The contentions raised by the appellant for the first time on appeal are without merit.