GIBBONS, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

v.

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia, 452 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1981)
  …sclosed under § 128 (a) (10). The Court of Appeals accordingly affirmed the judgment below.8 [*211] We granted certiorari to settle whether such an assignment of unearned insurance premiums must be disclosed as a “security interest” under the TILA.9 449 U. S. 981 (1980). We reverse. II Although the Court of Appeals’ construction of the Act and of Regulation Z is shared by three of the four other Courts of Appeals that have ruled on the question,10 this view, which is essentially a claim that the plain lang…
• United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1982)
  …a, as a judge of coordinate jurisdiction, was bound by that prior ruling. The doctrine of the law of the case is not an inviolate rule in this Circuit. In Slotkin v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 614 F. 2d 301, 312 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 395, 66 L.Ed.2d 243 (1980), we reiterated our long-established view that the law of the ease is, at best, a discretionary doctrine which “does not constitute a limitation on the court’s power but merely expresses the general practice of r…
• United States v. Uccio, 940 F.2d 753 (2d Cir. 1991)
  …Thus, we have noted that “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case is not an inviolate rule,” United States v. Birney, 686 F. 2d 102, 107 (2d Cir.1982); see Slotkin v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 614 F. 2d 301, 312 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 395, 66 L.Ed.2d 243 (1980), and the decision whether or not to apply law-of-the-case is, in turn, informed principally by the concern that disregard of an earlier ruling not be allowed to prejudice the party seeking the benefit of the doc…