Work v. United States, 201 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1953). · Go Syfert
Search
Work v. United States, 201 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1953). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lefferts v. Silverstein (nyed, 1975-06-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Lefferts v. Silverstein
E.D.N.Y · 1975 · signal: accord · confidence high
But, to justify an injunction of a state court action, ‘[i]t is not sufficient to show that the matter properly before a state court embraces issues within the compass of the federal suit, even if the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over its case.’ Greater Continental Corporation v. Scheehter, 304 F.Supp. 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1969), ap *986 peal dismissed 422 F.2d 1100 (2 Cir. 1970); accord, Lyons v. Westinghouse, 201 F.2d 510 (2 Cir. 1953).
discussed Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,356 International Controls Corp. v. Robert L. Vesco, and Andean Credit, S.A., Intervenor-Appellant. International Controls Corp. v. Robert L. Vesco, and Fairfield General Corporation, International Controls Corp. v. Robert L. Vesco, and Vesco & Co., Inc.
2d Cir. · 1974 · signal: accord · confidence high
We said in vernitron: To justify an injunction of a state court action, 'it is not sufficient to show that the matter properly before a state court embraces issues within the compass of the federal suit, even if the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over its case.' Greater Continental Corporation v. Schechter, 304 F.Supp. 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1969), appeal dismissed 422 F.2d 1100 (2 Cir. 1970); accord, Lyons v. Westinghouse, 201 F.2d 510 (2 Cir. 1953) . . ..
discussed Cited "see" International Controls Corp. v. Vesco
2d Cir. · 1974 · signal: accord · confidence high
We said in Verm tron: [T]o justify an injunction of a state court action, ‘ [i] t is not sufficient to show that the matter properly before a state court embraces issues within the compass of the federal suit, even if the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over its case.’ Greater Continental Corporation v. Schechter, 304 F.Supp. 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1969), appeal dismissed 422 F.2d 1100 (2 Cir. 1970) ; accord, Lyons v. Westinghouse, 201 F.2d 510 (2 Cir. 1953).
discussed Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,964 Vernitron Corporation and American Medical Instrument Corporation v. Paul Benjamin
2d Cir. · 1971 · signal: accord · confidence high
But, to justify an injunction of a state court action, “[i]t is not sufficient to show that the matter properly before a state court embraces issues within the compass of the federal suit, even if the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over its case.” Greater Continental Corporation v. Schechter, 304 F.Supp. 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1969), appeal dismissed 422 F.2d 1100 (2 Cir. 1970); accord, Lyons v. Westinghouse, 201 F.2d 510 (2 Cir. 1953).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Work
v.
United States
4554_1.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jan 27, 1953.
201 F.2d 510
H. D. Reed, Denver, Colo., for appellant., Eugene W. Davis, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Phillips, Huxman, Pickett.
Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an adverse ruling upon appellant’s motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the judgment and sentence imposed on him pursuant to his plea of[*511] guilty to each of four counts of an indictment charging him with transportation in interstate commerce falsely made, forged, and counterfeited checks in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. It is claimed that the indictment upon its face fails to state an offense and that, therefore, the judgment is void.

A casual reading of the indictment establishes beyond doubt that it does state a public offense. The questions of law are identical with and the facts are substantially the same as those before us in Kreuter v. United States, 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 33. Any discussion of either the law or of the facts would be wholly valueless and would only unnecessarily encumber legal publications.

The order appealed from is affirmed on authority of Kreuter v. United States, supra.