S.D. New York· 7/18/2005
Manos v. Geissler
Citations
- 377 F. Supp. 2d 422
- 10 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1388
- 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14755
- 2005 WL 1676740
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the first factor weighs in favor of the unnamed party where its role could be ascertained by the plaintiff at the time the EEOC charge was filed
- finding that third factor favored unnamed defendant where unnamed defendant was prevented from participating in EEOC settlement talks
- holding no FACA committee existed where meeting attendees providing individual, as opposed to collective, advice
- finding that the first factor weighed in favor of the unnamed party when the plaintiff knew that the named party was a franchisee of the unnamed party
- finding that the unnamed party was prejudiced when “[t]he EEOC tried to resolve th[e] matter as evidenced by the [s]ettlement [a]greement” and the unnamed party “had no involvement in the settlement[] and the alleged discrimination continued”
- “Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that demonstrate that Midas ‘exercised such complete dominion and control’ that BRG lacked independent will.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: William C. Conner
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- GEM Advisors, Inc. v. Corporación Sidenor, S.A.S.D. New York· 2009-10-27· cited 50×
- Kalin v. Xanboo, Inc.S.D. New York· 2007-01-31· cited 26×
- Senecal v. B.G. Lenders Service LLCN.D. New York· 2013-09-30· cited 20×
- Singh v. New York State Department of Taxation & FinanceW.D. New York· 2012-11-29· cited 13×
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. RabinerE.D. New York· 2010-11-04· cited 12×
- Tomici v. New York City Department of EducationE.D. New York· 2012-12-19· cited 2×
- American Oversight v. TrumpDistrict of Columbia· 2021-09-24
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court· 1974-04-17· cited 13,385×
- Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court· 1980-11-10· cited 3,527×
- Davis v. SchererSupreme Court· 1984-08-16· cited 2,605×
- Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Second Circuit· 1995-12-28· cited 417×
- Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co.Third Circuit· 1977-08-08· cited 234×
- Hertz Corp. v. City of New YorkSecond Circuit· 1993-08-02· cited 171×
- De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Second Circuit· 1996-06-25· cited 165×
- Johnson v. PalmaSecond Circuit· 1991-04-22· cited 147×
- Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.Second Circuit· 1999-09-23· cited 110×
- William Wrigley Jr. Co. v. WatersSecond Circuit· 1989-11-28· cited 82×
- Padavan v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1996-04-17· cited 81×
- In Re AES Corp. Securities LitigationS.D. New York· 1993-06-25· cited 68×
- Johnson v. A.P. Products, Ltd.S.D. New York· 1996-08-06· cited 47×
- Lumhoo v. Home Depot USA, Inc.E.D. New York· 2002-09-26· cited 37×
- Wendy Hong Wu v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc.E.D. New York· 2000-06-14· cited 36×
- Agugliaro v. Brooks Bros., Inc.S.D. New York· 1992-07-28· cited 19×
- Branker v. Pfizer, Inc.S.D. New York· 1997-11-12· cited 13×
- Schoenwandt v. Jamfro Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1999-05-04· cited 11×
- Breedlove v. CabouN.D. New York· 2003-12-11· cited 8×
- Manos v. GeisslerS.D. New York· 2004-06-14· cited 8×
Other cases named Manos v. Geissler
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.