21 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. United States

    512 U.S. 594 (1994)   Cited 865 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 804(b) "does not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory"
  2. Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford

    361 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,753 times
    Holding that policymaking official must have had notice of "potentially serious problem of unconstitutional conduct, such that the need for corrective action or supervision was 'obvious'"
  3. U.S. v. Farhane

    634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 314 times
    Holding that rationale for admitting expert testimony regarding organized crime families "[d]espite the prevalence of organized crime stories in the news and popular media" "applies with equal force to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda" (alteration in original)
  4. Santos v. Murdock

    243 F.3d 681 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 228 times
    Holding that an affidavit was admissible only for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement, so it could not be used to oppose summary judgment
  5. Parsons v. Honeywell, Inc.

    929 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that a police report is admissible under the public record exception
  6. United States v. Lang

    589 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that statements made to an undercover officer were not in furtherance of the conspiracy, and thus inadmissible
  7. Instinet Inc. v. Ariel (UK) Ltd.

    No. 08 Civ. 7141 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2012)

    No. 08 Civ. 7141 (JFK) 09-20-2012 INSTINET INCORPORATED, INSTINET HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, INSTINET GROUP, LLC, and INSTINET, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ARIEL (UK) LIMITED, Defendant. APPEARANCES For Plaintiffs Instinet Incorporated, Instinet Holdings Incorporated, Instinet Group, LLC, and Instinet, LLC: ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP By: Robert L. Sills For Defendants Ariel (UK) Limited: Michael J. Little John F. Keenan OPINION AND ORDER APPEARANCES For Plaintiffs Instinet Incorporated, Instinet Holdings

  8. U.S. v. Persing

    436 F. App'x 13 (2d Cir. 2011)

    No. 10-6378-cr. August 26, 2011. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brian M. Cogan, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part. Vivian Shevitz, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellant. Daniel S. Silver, Assistant United States Attorney (Susan Corkery, on the brief), for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn

  9. U.S. v. Dambruck

    270 F. App'x 30 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    No.[s]: 06-3649-cr (L), 06-3738-cr (CON). March 19, 2008. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Glen A. Garber, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Dambruck. Patrick J. Brackley (Thomas Eddy, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Valdez. Jonathan B. New, Assistant United States Attorney (Daniel A. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for

  10. Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that it would needlessly complicate summary judgment proceedings to require an affiant to make an explicit promise "to submit to a cross-examination which will not be required if the affidavit is acceptable"
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 36,629 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
  13. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,392 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
  14. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
  15. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,868 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
  16. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,264 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
  17. Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 804   Cited 4,023 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant
  18. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,925 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
  19. Rule 902 - Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

    Fed. R. Evid. 902   Cited 2,172 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[p]rinted material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical" is self-authenticating
  20. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,594 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule