ELLIS TRUCKING CO., INC., ET AL.

v.

SMART ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (77 total)

• Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984)
  …urts in refusing to permit the attorneys to appear occurred in their presence. Bundy points out that the misconduct complained about in this case occurred in another state, see Farmer v. Holton, 146 Ga.App. 102, 245 S.E. 2d 457 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 958, 99 S.Ct. 1499, 59 L.Ed.2d 771 (1979), and that no disciplinary proceedings were ever brought against the attorney. We do not agree that this makes a difference; the [*348] courts of this state are not bound by the lack of disciplinary action in oth…
• United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1981)
  …igently allows the statute of limitations to run on his client’s valid claim may be liable to his client even though the original defendant no longer has any exposure. Cf. Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., 580 F. 2d 215, 218-219 (CA6 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 958. In this case, I agree with the Court that the statute of limitations applicable to respondent’s claim against his former employer is the 90-day statute governing actions to vacate or [*75] modify arbitration awards in New York.6 It surely does not…
• United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …d under an objective standard, United States v. McCambridge, 551 F. 2d 865, 870 (1st Cir.1977), and the government need not show “the quantum of proof necessary to convict.” United States v. Miller, 589 F. 2d 1117, 1128 (1st Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 958, 99 S.Ct. 1499, 59 L.Ed.2d 771 (1979). Probability is the touchstone: “[probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of [*1024] probable cause.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2330, 76 L.E…