green
Positive treatment
10.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Posnanski v. William Gibney Gibney & Associates Xl Specialty Insurance Company, Charles Posnanski v. William Gibney Gibney & Associates, and Xl Specialty Insurance Company, Charles Posnanski v. William Gibney Gibney & Associates, and Xl Specialty Insurance Company
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 458-59 (9th Cir.1950), we did not actually review a transfer order from an out-of-circuit district court as the transferee court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Posnanski v. Gibney
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 458-59 (9th Cir.1950), we did not actually review a transfer order from an out-of-circuit district court as the transferee court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oja v. United States Army Corp of Engineers
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 458-59 (9th Cir.1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carteret Savings Bank, Fa v. Louis G. Shushan, Donald A. Meyer, Rader Jackson, Jacqueline McPherson Mitchell W. Herzog and Shushan, Meyer, Jackson, McPherson and Herzog. Carteret Savings Bank, Fa v. Louis G. Shushan, Donald A. Meyer, Rader Jackson, Jacqueline McPherson Mitchell W. Herzog and Shushan, Meyer, Jackson, McPherson and Herzog, Honorable Nicholas H. Politan, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Nominal
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459-60 (9th Cir.1950); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 382 , 74 S.Ct. 145, 147 , 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carteret Savings Bank, FA v. Shushan
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459-60 (9th Cir.1950); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 382 , 74 S.Ct. 145, 147 , 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,548 Washington Public Utilities Group v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Henry Puchall Joseph Harris David Gold Marvin Frankel Chemical Bank, Real Parties in Interest. Salomon Brothers, Inc., and Columbia Rural Electric Association, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington Public Utilities Group, Real Parties in Interest
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir.1950) (inconvenience of proceeding with what may be an unnecessary trial is a hardship of litigation in our judicial system and is insufficient to justify mandamus relief). 47 Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer "severe prejudice" or that the remedy of an appeal of the court's alleged errors of law is inadequate. 2 V Case No. 87-7236 48 Having set out the scope of our review of petitions for writ of mandamus, we next address the issues presented in each petition. 49 The motion for a change of venue on this matter was made pur…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington Public Utilities Group v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir.1950) (inconvenience of proceeding with what may be an unnecessary trial is a hardship of litigation in our judicial system and is insufficient to justify mandamus relief).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dalton v. United States
Gulf Research and Development Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir.1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Dalton
Gulf Research and Development Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir.1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Varsic v. United States District Court for the Central District of California
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Varsic v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. United States District Court
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1950); Magnetic Eng’ring. & Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California
Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1950); Magnetic Eng'ring. & Mfg.
cited
Cited "see"
Nbs Imaging Systems, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Eastern District Of California
See Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457 (9th Cir.1950).
cited
Cited "see"
NBS Imaging Systems, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
See Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457 (9th Cir.1950).
cited
Cited "see"
Ochoa v. American Oil Company
Accord, Lewis v. Times Publishing Company, 185 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1950) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Wirtz v. Robert E. Bob Adair, Inc.
See Lewis v. Times Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 457 ; Olearchick v. American Steel Foundries, W.D.Pa., 73 F.Supp. 273 ; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., ¶38.27, p. 208.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gilboy
The question was raised but undecided in In re Greene, supra, 160 F.2d at page 518 , but see Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Leahy, 3 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 302, 303, 304, 305 , affirmed by an equally divided court in 344 U.S. 861 , 73 S.Ct. 102 , 97 L.Ed. 668 ; see TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, supra, 240 F.2d at page 714 , Note 5, and LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 249 , at pages 254, 255 et seq., 77 S.Ct. 309 , at page 313, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 , “This is not to say that the conclusion we reach on the facts of this case is intended, or can be used, to authorize the indiscriminate use o…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alice Nakshian v. W. Graham Claytor, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Navy
See, e. g., Lewis v. Times Publishing Co., 185 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1950). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis
v.
Times Pub. Co.
v.
Times Pub. Co.
13295.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 28, 1950.
Charles J. Morris, Dallas, Tex., for appellant., Leslie Humphrey, C. C. McDonald, Wichita Falls, Tex., for appellee.
Hutcheson, McCord, Borah.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, the suit was for a money demand, overtime compensation, and liquidated damages.
Plaintiff’s request for a jury denied, the cause went to trial before the district judge without a jury and judgment was rendered for the defendant.
Appellant, plaintiff below, is here assigning error on the refusal of his jury request and on the failure to render judgment for him.
Appellee urges upon us that the case was not one requiring a jury, and it was not error to refuse the request. He urges further that there was no substantial evidence upon which a jury might properly have returned a verdict for plaintiff, and, if the refusal was error, it was harmless. Burke Grain Co. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 8 Cir., 94 F.2d 458.
It is quite clear that the case was one requiring a jury, and that because of the refusal of plaintiff’s request, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for jury trial. Reversed and remanded.