Bank of China v. Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. (1998)
green
· 39 citation events
across 24 courts.
Showing the 14 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199620112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
BankBoston, N.A. v. Claflin (In Re Claflin) (2000)
Credit Union v. Parker (In re Parker), 139 F.3d 668, 670-71 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 535 (1998) (“We conclude that the [creditor] was an ‘aggrieved person’ and had standing to appeal the bankruptcy court’s refusal to approve the reaffirmation agreement.”).
“We conclude that the [creditor] was an ‘aggrieved person’ and had standing to appeal the bankruptcy court’s refusal to approve the reaffirmation agreement.”
green
Logan v. Burgers Ozark Ctry (2003)
See, e.g., Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir.) (decisions under Rule 60(b)(4) reviewed de novo because such motions “leave no margin for consideration of the district court’s discretion as the judgments themselves are by definition either legal nullities or not”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 (1998).
green
Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, a Foreign State, and South African Tourism Board, an Age… (2002)
Ass’n, 33 F.3d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1112 , 115 S.Ct. 904 , 130 L.Ed.2d 787 (1995); accord Voest-Alpine Trading USA *237 Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887 , 894-95 n. 10 (5th Cir.) (“[T]he third clause does not permit jurisdiction over foreign states whose acts cause only speculative, generalized, immeasurable, and ultimately unverifiable effects in the United States.”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 591 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998).
See, e.g., Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens, Inc., 143 F.3d 71, 88 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998).
Compare In re Parker, 139 F.3d 668, 672-73 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 535 (1998) (holding that debtor can retain collateral without reaffirmation as long as required payments are continued) with In re Burr, 160 F.3d 843, 848-49 (1st Cir.1998) (recognizing that creditor may seize collateral absent reaffirmation).
holding that debtor can retain collateral without reaffirmation as long as required payments are continued
green
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V. (2000)
See, e.g., Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir.) (“the cause of action [must] be ‘based upon’ a certain act or activity of the foreign state, that is, the act or activity must form the basis of at least some element of the cause of action”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 591 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998); Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, 965 F.2d at 1384 (“suit must be based upon ‘commercial activity’ which has at least one of the th…
green
Threlkeld v. Total Petroleum, Inc. (2000)
See Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 591 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998).
See, e.g., Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., Inc., 142 F.3d 326 , 329 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041, 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998);.
green
Fjord v. Amr Corp. (In re Amr Corp.) (2019)
See, e.g. , Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens, Inc. , 143 F.3d 71 , 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (affirming denial of motion to amend that was filed after the close of discovery and the filing of a motion for summary judgment as untimely and prejudicial), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998) ; Zahra v. Town of Southold , 48 F.3d 674 , 686 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of leave to amend sought two-and-a-half years after the filing of an action and three mon…
affirming denial of leave to amend sought two-and-a-half years after the filing of an action and three months before trial
green
Wilcox v. Cornell University (2012)
See, e.g., Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens Inc., 143 F.3d 71, 88 (2d Cir.) (affirming denial of motion to amend and noting that a “ ‘proposed amendment ... [is] especially prejudicial ... [when] discovery had already been completed and [non-movant] had already filed a motion for summary judgment’ ”), cert, denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998); Bilal v. N.Y.S.
Peck, M.J.
green
Frenkel v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. (2009)
See, e.g., Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens Inc., 143 F.3d 71 , 88 (2d Cir.) (" ‘[A] proposed amendment ... [is] especially prejudicial ... [when] discovery had already been completed and [non-movant] had already filed a motion for summary judgment.’ ”) (quoting Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760 F.2d 442 , 446 (2d Cir. 1985)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998); Walker v. Caban, 08 Civ. 3025, 2008 WL 4925204 at *13 (S.D.N.Y.
Peck, M.J.
green
Johnson v. Goord (2007)
See, e.g., Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens Inc., 143 F.3d 71, 88 (2d Cir.1998) (“[A] proposed amendment ... [is] especially prejudicial ... [when] discovery had already been completed and [the non-movant] had already filed a motion for summary judgment.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998).
See also Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 897 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 591 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998), (“[T]he Bank of China’s failure to pay on the letter of credit caused a direct effect in the United States, that is, Voest-Alpine’s non-receipt of funds in its Texas bank account followed as an immediate consequence of the Bank of China’s actions.”).
See Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens, Inc., 143 F.3d 71 , 87-88 (2d Cir.) (Where proposed amendments would require additional discovery and further delay resolution of the action, prejudice sufficient to deny motion to amend was established), cert. denied., 525 U.S. 1041 , 119 S.Ct. 592 , 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998); Ansam Assoc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760 F.2d 442 (2d Cir.1985) (“[Pjermitting the proposed amendment would [be] especially prejudicial given the fact that discovery had…