Prout v. Vladeck

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the standard for interlocutory appeal is “high” and that such appeals are “rare, and reserved for exceptional circumstances”
• declining to certify interlocutory appeal because “there is not a substantial ground for difference of opinion on any controlling question of law’
• denying interlocutory appeal because “there is not a substantial ground for difference of opinion on any controlling question of law”
• standard for interlocutory appeal is “high” and such appeals are “reserved for exceptional circumstances” (citing cases)
• certification should be “rare, and reserved for exceptional circumstances” (quotation marks omitted)
• interlocutory appeals are “rare, and reserved for exceptional circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Prout v. Vladeck
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-04-12· cited 2×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bruce C. Shrader v. Csx Transportation, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1995-11-15· cited 2,273×
• Ricky Baker v. David Alan Dorfman
  Second Circuit· 2000-09-01· cited 235×
• Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota
  S.D. New York· 1988-12-02· cited 189×
• Titsworth v. Mondo
  New York Supreme Court· 1978-06-28· cited 28×
• John W. Grace v. Michael R. Law
  New York Court of Appeals· 2014-10-21· cited 23×
• Somma v. Dansker & Aspromonte Associates
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2007-10-09· cited 15×
• John F. Barry, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Liddle, O'connor, Finkelstein & Robinson, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
  Second Circuit· 1996-10-21· cited 13×
• U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2011-12-27· cited 11×
• Mills v. EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY
  S.D. New York· 2009-10-28· cited 10×