35 Cited authorities

  1. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain

    503 U.S. 249 (1992)   Cited 2,710 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)
  2. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

    504 U.S. 374 (1992)   Cited 1,711 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that guidelines on airfare advertising were "related to" the rates, routes, or services of an air carrier given that every guideline makes "express reference to [air]fares"
  3. Russello v. United States

    464 U.S. 16 (1983)   Cited 2,102 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
  4. American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson

    456 U.S. 63 (1982)   Cited 602 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under an employer's bona fide seniority system, there can be no Title VII liability even if the current system perpetuates pre-Title VII lawful discrimination
  5. United States v. Granderson

    511 U.S. 39 (1994)   Cited 258 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discrete, differently worded probation and supervised release provisions should not be interpreted in pari materia
  6. Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group

    508 U.S. 10 (1993)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that in a contract between HUD and private landlords, the clause providing for automatic annual rent increases was preempted by a clause stating that "notwithstanding any other provisions of the contract" adjustments shall not result in a difference between subsidized rents and unsubsidized rents. The court concluded that "a clearer statement [of Congressional intent] is harder to imagine"
  7. U.S. v. First Nat. City Bank

    379 U.S. 378 (1965)   Cited 285 times
    Holding that preliminary injunction preventing dissipation of assets was warranted where plaintiff sought foreclosure of tax lien
  8. Mohammed v. Reno

    309 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that a stay of removal may issue even when the alien's chance of ultimate success is less than 50 percent because, "[i]f the likelihood were more than 50 percent, the appellant would be required to persuade the stay panel that he was more likely than not to win the appeal before the merits panel, just to obtain the critical opportunity to maintain the status quo until the merits panel considers the appeal"
  9. Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections

    984 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 209 times
    Holding that a party's delay in seeking an injunctive relief "severely undermines [its] argument that absent a stay irreparable harm w[ill] result"
  10. Weininger v. Castro

    462 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that the TRIA "provides [an] independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction in this enforcement proceeding against these [foreign sovereign] entities"
  11. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,386 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders
  12. Rule 69 - Execution

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 69   Cited 4,002 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting state law for procedures to execute judgments and obtain relevant discovery
  13. Section 1605 - General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

    28 U.S.C. § 1605   Cited 1,905 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991
  14. Section 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

    28 U.S.C. § 1605A   Cited 491 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Adopting definition of "material support or resources" found in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A
  15. Section 1610 - Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution

    28 U.S.C. § 1610   Cited 444 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Abrogating attachment immunity of property of a foreign state when the property is “used for commercial activity in the United States”