In re Deems

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Boyce

    144 F.2d 896 (C.C.P.A. 1944)   Cited 31 times

    ed since its original announcement more than eleven years ago, from which time it has been consistently followed by us. They are as follows: In re Dreyfus, 65 F.2d 472, 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1204, 1207; In re Emanueli, 67 F.2d 445, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 701, 704; In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 792, 793; In re Ross, 68 F.2d 164, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 798, 802; In re Sponable, 69 F.2d 544, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 958, 961; In re Schoenky, 69 F.2d 982, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1052, 1055; In re Heintz, 71 F.2d 172, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1169, 1172; In re Bowles, 71 F.2d 202, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1212, 1214; In re Laursen, 73 F.2d 642, 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 774, 778; In re Ball, 81 F.2d 242, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 830, 833; In re Curtis, 81 F.2d 236, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 869, 874; In re Thomas and Hochwalt, 83 F.2d 902, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1238, 1240; In re Wheeler, 83 F.2d 904, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241, 1243; In re Ellis, 86 F.2d 412, 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 759, 761; In re Deems, 93 F.2d 47, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 785, 788; In re Ringel, 94 F.2d 225, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 879, 886; In re Adrian, 94 F.2d 808, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 921, 924; In re Schmidt, 100 F.2d 673, 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 773, 775; In re Widmer, 102 F.2d 409, 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 963, 970; Bourdon v. Kraft, 113 F.2d 115, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1408, 1409; Crane et al. v. Carlson, 125 F.2d 709, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 879, 881; In re Lincoln et al., 126 F.2d 477, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 942, 948; Foss v. Oglesby, 127 F.2d 312, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1005, 1008; In re Wahl, 132 F.2d 323, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 719, 721; In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 730, 731; Jones v. Winsor, 133 F.2d 931, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 824, 829; In re Nelson, 134 F.2d 187, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 864, 869. The applicability of the rule in the instant case is hereinafter stated.

  2. Lee-Lewis v. Kerry

    2:13-CV-80 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    Five hold that it is not. See, e.g., Dina, 7 93 F.2d 47 6 ("The USIA's statutory authorization contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e) is entirely bereft of any guiding principles by which the USIA's action may subsequently be judged . . . Given the fact that foreign policy concerns are integrally involved in waiver decisions, agency discretion in this area should be broad."); Slyper, 827 F.2d at 823 ("The statute contains no standard or criterion upon which the Director is to base a decision to make or withhold a favorable recommendation. This broad delegation of discretionary authority is 'clear and convincing evidence' of congressional intent to restrict judicial review in cases such as those we now face."); Singh, 867 F.2d at 1039 ("[B]y virtue of the statutory language, the statutory structure, the legislative history, and the nature of the USIA's actions under § 1182(e), Congress has provided 'no meaningful standard' for reviewing the USIA's action, and has 'committed' the USIA's waiver recommendation function' to that agency's discretion.")

  3. Arroyo v. City of New York

    99 Civ. 1458 (JSM) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2003)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that an alleged eight-month delay in surgical repair of an inmate's inguinal hernia was not serious enough to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation

    Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986); Cifarelli v. Village of Babylon, 93 F.2d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[M] ere conclusory allegations, speculation or conjecture will not avail a party resisting summary judgment."); Goenaqa v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995). It also appears that Plaintiff has not alleged that the municipal Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of indifference to prisoners' medical needs, as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037-38 (1978); Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir. 1983).