N.D. New York· 3/31/1995
Romand v. Zimmerman
Citations
- 881 F. Supp. 806
- 32 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1406
- 4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 682
- 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4536
- 1995 WL 153398
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that service on chairperson of the board of trustees was insufficient to give notice to hospital under CPLR 311, which governs service on corporation
- a court is justified in reconsidering even a final judgment if there is an intervening change in the controlling law
- “Under the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York, a determination of whether the applicant will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be made prior to service of process.”
- dismissing Rehabilitation Act claims against hospital employees
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McAvoy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Schrader v. Fred A. Ray, M.D., P.C.Tenth Circuit· 2002-07-16· cited 56×
- Cooke-Seals v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 1997-07-17· cited 56×
- Johnson v. A.P. Products, Ltd.S.D. New York· 1996-08-06· cited 47×
- Lane v. Maryhaven Center of HopeE.D. New York· 1996-11-02· cited 40×
- Duprey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of AmericaN.D. New York· 1996-01-10· cited 33×
- Coddington v. Adelphi UniversityE.D. New York· 1999-03-29· cited 31×
- Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.D. Vermont· 1996-06-20· cited 23×
- Leykis v. NYP Holdings, Inc.E.D. New York· 1995-08-02· cited 22×
- McNight v. Dormitory Authority of State of NYN.D. New York· 1998-02-19· cited 17×
- Clark v. DominiqueN.D. New York· 2011-06-28· cited 16×
- Chira v. Columbia University in New York CityS.D. New York· 2003-10-31· cited 16×
- Johnson v. New York HospitalS.D. New York· 1995-06-27· cited 15×
- Fitzpatrick v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1999-03-25· cited 12×
- Herzog v. McLane Northeast, Inc.N.D. New York· 1998-03-31· cited 11×
- Schaffer v. Ames Department Stores, Inc.D. Connecticut· 1995-05-26· cited 7×
- Ellis v. PrincipiS.D. Mississippi· 2004-08-13· cited 7×
- Jones v. Inter-County Imaging CentersS.D. New York· 1995-06-16· cited 5×
- Miranda v. Back Bay Publishing Co.Massachusetts Superior Court· 1996-07-15· cited 1×
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court· 1980-11-10· cited 3,527×
- Phyllis Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc., Dba Maxwell's Plum, Debtor in Possession Carlo Galazzo, Gen. Mgt., Dino La Rosa Don Bohn Don SchupakNinth Circuit· 1993-04-19· cited 636×
- Grant v. Lone Star Co.Fifth Circuit· 1994-05-27· cited 320×
- Systems Signs Supplies, Jahurett Castrillon v. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Fifth Circuit· 1990-05-15· cited 235×
- Jerome Rosenberg v. Raymond v. MartinSecond Circuit· 1973-04-27· cited 189×
- Fashion Page, Ltd. v. Zurich InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals· 1980-04-29· cited 172×
- Dahlberg v. BeckerSecond Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 143×
- Saville v. Houston County Healthcare AuthorityM.D. Alabama· 1994-05-12· cited 50×
- Pacourek v. Inland Steel Co.N.D. Illinois· 1994-07-27· cited 41×
- Marcus D. Robinson v. America's Best Contacts and EyeglassesSeventh Circuit· 1989-06-08· cited 34×
- Krajci v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1981-09-28· cited 30×
- Haltek v. Village of Park ForestN.D. Illinois· 1994-09-27· cited 21×
- Larsen v. OrtegaD. Connecticut· 1992-03-30· cited 21×
- Pacific Lanes, Inc. v. Bowling Proprietors Ass'n of America, Inc.D. Oregon· 1965-09-23· cited 8×
- Rolin v. Escambia County Board of EducationS.D. Alabama· 1990-08-15· cited 5×
- Plainview Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, Inc.New York Supreme Court· 1960-09-27· cited 2×
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.