Mary Hill Valone v. John A. Jones, 259 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Mary Hill Valone v. John A. Jones, 259 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
71 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yvonne Pinkney v. United States (cadc, 1966-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yvonne Pinkney v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1966 · confidence medium
D.C. 81, 84, 259 F.2d 811, 814 (1958) ,(en banc); Stewart v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 55 , 247 F.2d 42, 46 (1957) (en banc) (opinion of Judge Bazelon); Lee Won Sing v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 310 , 215 F.2d 680 (1954) (per curiam). 5 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Connell Robinson v. United States (4×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. Cir. · 1964 · confidence medium
D.C. 81, 86, 259 F.2d 811, 815-816 (1958), emphasis supplied.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Morton Sobell
2d Cir. · 1963 · confidence medium
D.C. 81, 259 F.2d 811, 824-825 (1958); Smith v. United States, 106 U.S.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carl Harvey Bistram v. United States (2×)
8th Cir. · 1960 · confidence medium
See, also; Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 219 , 221 and cases cited; Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 492, 494 ; minority opinion in Belton v. United States, 104 U.S. App.D.C. 81, 259 F.2d 811, 817, 822 ; and concurring opinion of Judge Prettyman in Smith v. United States, 106 U.S. App.D.C. 169, 270 F.2d 921, 929 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Warren E. Moore v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1960 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Belton v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 87 , 259 F.2d 811, 817 (dissent); Salinger v. Loisel, 1924, 265 U.S. 224 , 44 S.Ct. 519 , 68 L.Ed. 989 . 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bistram v. United States
D.N.D. · 1960 · confidence medium
But the opinion, written by the same judge who had written the Lipscomb opinion less than a year before, does not overrule the Lipscomb case and makes no reference to it.” Belton v. United States, 259 F.2d 811, 822, 824 . *507 One other circuit holds that the sentencing court is not required to entertain a successive motion for relief even though it is based upon factual grounds not previously relied upon.
cited Cited "see" Williams v. United States
D.C. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 84 , 259 F.2d 811, 814 (1958); Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266 , 270, 244 F.2d 355, 360 (1957). 2 .
discussed Cited "see" West v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811 (1958) ; Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266 , 244 F.2d 355 (1957).
discussed Cited "see" Baker v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 83 , 259 F.2d 811, 813 (1958); Coleman v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 246 , 247 n. 2, 371 F.2d 343 n. 2 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 945 , 87 S.Ct. 979 , 17 L.Ed.2d 875 (1967); 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 485 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Michael Leon Johnson v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 84 , 259 F.2d 811, 814 (en banc 1958); Shannon v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 6-7 , 206 F.2d 479, 481-482 (1953); Randolph v. Randolph, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 170 , 198 F.2d 956 (1952); Boykin v. Huff, 73 App.D.C. 378 , 121 F.2d 865 (1941).
cited Cited "see" Leon Bartley v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811 (1958) ; Young v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 62 , 214 F.2d 232 (1954); and 3 Wharton.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jones
D. Kan. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See the review of authorities in Bistram v. United States, D.C.N.D.1960, 180 F.Supp. 501 and Belton v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811, 824-825 (dissenting opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Norman E. Smith v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. Overholser, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 402 , 186 F.2d 339 . 5 Compare dissenting opinion in Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811 6 It does not include, however, the repetition of a particular alleged legal infirmity previously adjudicated adversely to the prisoner.
cited Cited "see" James E. Clatterbuck v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811 , and Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266 , 272, 244 F.2d 355, 361 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Kosanowsky v. United States Department of Army
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Belton v. United States, 259 F.2d 811, 814 (D.C.Cir.1958) (en banc), cited in Interstate Natural Gas Association, 756 F.2d at 170 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Belton v. United States, 259 F.2d 811, 814 (D.C.Cir.1958) (en banc) (letter requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis) (citing cases); Riffle v. United States, 299 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.1962) (letter to judge of court of appeals).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Interstate Natural Gas Association of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mobil Oil Corporation, General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Petroleum Company, Pennzoil Company, Mississippi River Transmission Corp., Shell Oil Company, Exxon Corporation, Laclede Gas Company, Getty Oil Company, Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, Associated Gas Distributors, Northern Natural Gas Company, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, Texaco, Inc., Tenneco Oil Company, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Placid Oil Company, Aminoil, Usa, Inc., Intervenors. Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mobil Oil Corporation, Amoco Production Company, General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Petroleum Company, Pennzoil Company, Exxon Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Union Oil Company of California, Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, Getty Oil Company, Associated Gas Distributors, Laclede Gas Company, Sun Oil Company, Arco Oil & Gas Company, Placid Oil Company, Texaco, Inc., Gulf Oil Corporation, Intervenors. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mobil Oil Corporation, General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Petroleum Company, Pennzoil Company, Shell Oil Company, Associated Gas Distributors, Getty Oil Company, Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, Texaco, Inc., Exxon Corporation, Sun Oil Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Placid Oil Company, Intervenors. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mobil Oil Corporation, General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Petroleum Company, Pennzoil Company, Shell Oil Company, Laclede Gas Company, Associated Gas Distributors, Getty Oil Company, Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, Texaco, Inc., Sun Oil Company, Chevron, Usa, Exxon Corporation, Tenneco Oil Company, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Placid Oil Company, Intervenors. Lone Star Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Petroleum Company, Pennzoil Company, Shell Oil Company, Laclede Gas Company, Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, Getty Oil Company, Associated Gas Distributors, Valero Transmission Company, Texaco, Inc., Exxon Corporation, Sun Oil Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Placid Oil Company, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., Intervenors. Laclede Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Lone Star Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Exxon Corporation, Conoco Inc., General American Oil Company of Texas, Pennzoil Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Union Oil Co. Of California, Getty Oil Company, Aminoil Usa, Inc., Gulf Oil Corporation, Texaco, Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, Sun Exploration and Production Co., Intervenors. Associated Gas Distributors v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Belton v. United States, 259 F.2d 811, 814 (D.C.Cir.1958) (en banc ) (letter requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis) (citing cases); Riffle v. United States, 299 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.1962) (letter to judge of court of appeals).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cazada G. D. Saylor v. United States Board of Parole, R. A. Chappell, Chairman
D.C. Cir. · 1965 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81 , 259 F.2d 811 (1958); Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266 , 244 F.2d 355 (1957); Smith v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 169 , 270 F.2d 921 (1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Hill Valone
v.
John A. Jones
14388_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Oct 2, 1958.
259 F.2d 811
Published

259 F.2d 811

104 U.S.App.D.C. 81

Mary Hill VALONE, Appellant,
v.
John A. JONES, Appellee.

No. 14388.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 26, 1958.
Decided Oct. 2, 1958.

Mr. Richard L. Merrick, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. H. Mason Welch, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. J. Harry Welch, J. Joseph Barse, Arthur V. Butler, and Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~811]1

The plaintiff in a negligence case appeals from a judgment for the defendant based on a directed verdict. We find no error.

[*~835]2

Affirmed.