green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.5 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“AAMC v. Cuomo ”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"[p]ermitting the late filing of such a certificate falls within the discretion of the court"
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Antonio R. Marin.
n issue 'once decided, should not be reopened "unless . . . the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hails
ermitting the late filing of such a certificate falls within the discretion of the court
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
American Society of Composers, Authors, & Publishers Ex Rel. Bergman v. Pataki
aamc v. cuomo
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Browne
See United States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535, 1537 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 ... (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marrero Rivera
See United ___ ______ States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535, 1537 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. ______ _________ _____ denied, 502 U.S. 862 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marrero Rivera
See United States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535, 1537 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Miranda Santiago
See United States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535 , ___ _____________ _________ 1537 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 (1991); Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Snowcrest Development Group, Inc.
See United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991); 150 North St.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Miranda Santiago
See United States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535, 1537 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991); Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Houlihan
See United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 152-53 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991); Stratton v. United States, 862 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1988) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Houlihan
See United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d ___ _____________ _______________ 148, 152-53 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 (1991); _____ ______ Stratton v. United States, 862 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1988) (per ________ _____________ curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Joan S. Borawick v. Morrie Shay and Christine Shay
See A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm v. Beaumont Oil Ltd., 927 F.2d 713, 716 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 183 , 116 L.Ed.2d 144 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Santiago-Ramirez v. Secretary of Department of Defense of the U.S.A.
See Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Walbrook Insurance Co. Ltd., 41 F.3d 764, 769 (1st Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Rivera-Martínez, 931 F.2d 148 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc.
See United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 151 [1st Cir.], cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 [1991]). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Silvers
See United States v. RiveraMartinez, 931 F.2d 148, 153 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991); United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir.1995); 48 United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 345 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1021 , 106 S.Ct. 1210 , 89 L.Ed.2d 322 (1986); United States v. Maull, 806 F.2d 1340, 1346-47 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 907 , 107 S.Ct. 1352 , 94 L.Ed.2d 522 (1987); United States v. Jones, 918 F.2d 909, 911 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Stallings, 810 F.2d 973, 975-76 (10th Cir.1987); United States v. Smith…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Houghton v. United States (In Re Szwyd)
See also United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991) (“issues, once decided, should not be reopened 'unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice' ”). 15 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson
We could revisit our own earlier decision if NN could “show that controlling legal authority has changed dramatically;” “proffer significant new evidence, not earlier obtainable in the exercise of due diligence;” or “convince the court that a blatant error in the prior decision will, if uncorrected, result in a serious injustice.” United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 862 , 112 S.Ct. 184 , 116 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991).
A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm
v.
Banque Paribas (Suisse) S. A., Geneva
v.
Banque Paribas (Suisse) S. A., Geneva
No. 91-113.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1991.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.