Quartararo v. Catterson

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 February 12, 1992 letter to plaintiff from defendant Lester, a letter plaintiff claims never to have received, was constitutionally insufficient
• rejecting defendants’ argument that this case amounts to nothing more than an “unfortunate set of timing” and setting forth the rapid pace of the events of February 11 and 12, 1992

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• System Management Arts Inc. v. Avesta Technologies, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2000-07-19· cited 28×
• Quartararo v. Hoy
  E.D. New York· 2000-09-25· cited 2×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Heck v. Humphrey
  Supreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 15,294×
• Wolff v. McDonnell
  Supreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 12,327×
• Morrissey v. Brewer
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
• Edwards v. Balisok
  Supreme Court· 1997-05-19· cited 2,485×
• Eric Jenkins v. Lt. Haubert
  Second Circuit· 1999-06-11· cited 250×
• Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp.
  S.D. New York· 1999-06-25· cited 105×
• Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
  Second Circuit· 1999-07-21· cited 90×
• Kim v. Hurston
  Second Circuit· 1999-06-17· cited 57×
• Tracy v. Salamack
  Second Circuit· 1978-04-06· cited 17×
• Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  D. Hawaii· 1967-07-24· cited 7×
• Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
  E.D. New York· 1998-11-30· cited 6×