Morton M. Rose v. Robert S. McNamara Sec'y of Def., 339 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Morton M. Rose v. Robert S. McNamara Sec'y of Def., 339 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re the Shepard Co. (ri, 1975-07-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re the Shepard Co. (2×)
R.I. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rodi Boat Co. v. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co., 236 F.Supp. 935 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 339 F.2d 259 (3d Cir. 1964); Bramble Transportation, Inc. v. Sam Senter Sales, Inc., 294 A.2d 97 (Del.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gregory v. Freeman
N.D.N.Y. · 1966 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter.” State of Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 , 83 S.Ct. 1052, 1053 , 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963); see also Rose v. McNamara, 225 F.Supp. 891 (E.D.Pa.1963), aff’d, 339 F.2d 259 (3d Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morton M. Rose
v.
Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense
14856.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Dec 28, 1964.
339 F.2d 259
Published

339 F.2d 259

Morton M. ROSE, Appellant,
v.
Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense.

No. 14856.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued November 13, 1964.

Decided December 28, 1964.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Joseph S. Lord, III, Judge.

Edwin J. McDermott, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C. (Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Alan S. Rosenthal, Martin Jacobs, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and FORMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

An examination of the record and of the briefs and careful consideration of the arguments of counsel convince us that the correct result has been achieved in this case. Consequently the judgment will be affirmed.