green
Positive treatment
1.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Clifton v. Grisham
See, Perkins v. Banster, 190 F.Supp. 98 (D.Md.1960), aff’d 285 F.2d 426 (4 Cir. 1960); Marshall v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 60, 343 F.Supp. 70 (E.D.La.1972); Arnold v. Tiffany, 359 F.Supp. 1034 (C.D.Cal.1973), aff’d. 487 F.2d 216 (1973); Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 368 F.Supp. 829 (N.D.Cal. 1973); Schetter v. Heim, 300 F.Supp. 1070 (E.D.Wis. 1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Giordani v. Hoffmann
See generally, American Bakeries v. Barrick, 162 F. Supp. 882, 885 (N.D.Ohio, 1959), aff’d 6 Cir., 285 F.2d 426 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co.(America), Inc.
See, e. g., Perkins v. Banster, 190 F.Supp. 98, 99 (D.Md.), aff’d per curiam, 285 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1960). 3.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
v.
Federal Power Commission
v.
Federal Power Commission
16417.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 6, 1960.
285 F.2d 426
Published
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., Petitioner
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.
No. 16417.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
October 6, 1960.
Petition for Review of Orders of Federal Power Commission.
G. R. Redding, Indianapolis, Ind., Raymond N. Shibley, Washington, D. C., and Jeff A. Robertson, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Willard W. Gatchell and Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
1
Petition for review of Orders of Federal Power Commission dismissed, on motion by petitioner, with unpaid costs to be borne by petitioner.