IN RE KARAPINKA

Citator

Cited By

• New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1984)
  …the gun in question, and a statement made by respondent, because the statement was obtained by police before they read respondent his “Miranda rights.” That ruling was affirmed on appeal through the New York Court of Appeals. We granted certiorari, 461 U. S. 942 (1983), and we now reverse.1 We conclude that under the circumstances involved in this case, overriding considerations of public safety justify the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings before he asked questions devoted to locating the aband…
• Bennett v. United States Tr. Co. OF NEW York, 770 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1985)
  …have decided the question have held that no private cause of action exists under section 7. Bassler v. Central National Bank, 715 F. 2d 308, 310-13 (7th Cir.1983); Walck v. American Stock Exchange, 687 F. 2d 778, 788-89 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 942, 103 S.Ct. 2118, 77 L.Ed.2d 1300 (1983); Gilman v. FDIC, 660 F. 2d 688, 691-93 (6th Cir. 1981); Gutter v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 644 F. 2d 1194, 1197-99 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982…
• Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …andated “contract” between an exchange and the government agency. See, e.g., Weinberger v. New York Stock Exchange, 335 F.Supp. 139 (S.D.N.Y.1971). But see Walck v. American Stock Exchange, Inc., 687 F. 2d 778, 782-88 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 942, 103 S.Ct. 2118, 77 L.Ed.2d 1300 (1983) (no implied private cause of action under either former or present versions of section 6). In the instant case, REDCO does not and indeed cannot claim to be a beneficiary under an agreement between an exchan…