De Gaster v. Fowler, 354 F.2d 515 (D.C. Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
De Gaster v. Fowler, 354 F.2d 515 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the business of the joint commission is that of accrediting hospitals. field inspections are an essential aspect of that business.”
32 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Myers v. American Dental Association (ca3, 1983-01-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Myers v. American Dental Association (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1983 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the business of the joint commission is that of accrediting hospitals. field inspections are an essential aspect of that business.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
W.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
Bogus, supra, at 330 (citing Levin v. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, 354 F.2d 515, 517 (D.C.Cir.1965)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic v. American Chiropractic Ass'n
N.D. Ga. · 1982 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Levin v. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, 354 F.2d 515, 518 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam) (holding that venue was proper under section 12 against national Commission on Accreditation which performed inspections of hospitals, “without which the Commission’s work cannot go forward,” within district).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burch v. Amsterdam Corporation (2×)
D.C. · 1976 · confidence medium
Kress & Co., supra note 1, 398 U.S. at 160 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 ; Bloomgarden v. Coyer, supra note 8, at 115, 479 F.2d at 207 ; Levin v. Joint Comm'n on Accreditation of Hosps., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 383 , 386, 354 F.2d 515, 518 (1965). [13] The Restatement states: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bogus v. American Speech & Hearing Association
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · confidence medium
C. 383, 354 F.2d 515, 517 (1965); School District of Philadelphia v. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 1006, 1009 (E.D.Pa.1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citizens for Allegan County, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, City of Allegan, Michigan, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464, 473 , 82 S.Ct. 486 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 458 (1962); Levin v. Joint Comm’n on Accreditation of Hospitals, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 383 , 386, 354 F.2d 515, 518 (1965). 8 .
cited Cited "see" Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Levin v. Joint Comm’n on Accreditation of Hosps., 354 F.2d 515 , 517-18 (D.C.Cir.1966).
cited Cited "see" Academy of Ambulatory Foot Surgery v. American Podiatry Ass'n
S.D.N.Y. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Levin v. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, supra, 354 F.2d at 518 ; Bogus v. American Speech and Hearing Association, supra, 389 F.Supp. at 330 .
cited Cited "see" Lippa & Co. v. Lenox Inc.
D. Vt. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Levin v. Joint Comm'n on Accreditation of Hosps., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 383 , 354 F.2d 515 (1965); Brandt v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., 278 F.2d 904 (8th Cir. 1960); Green v. U. S. Chewing Gum Mfg.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Indian Head, Inc. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Levin v. Joint Comm'n on Accreditation of Hospitals, 354 F.2d 515 , 517-18 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam); Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic v. American Chiropractic Ass’n, 534 F.Supp. 438 (N.D.Ga.1982); Health Care Equalization Comm. v. Iowa Medical Soc’y, 501 F.Supp. 970 (S.D.Iowa 1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Myers v. American Dental Ass'n (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Levin v. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, supra, 354 F.2d at 517 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elizabeth De Gaster, Joseph Philips and George Philips, Individually, and as Administrator With the Will Annexed, of the Estate of Philip Philips, Deceased, and of the Estate of Adolph Philips, Deceased, Respectively
v.
Henry H. Fowler, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America
19367_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 23, 1965.
354 F.2d 515
Published

354 F.2d 515

122 U.S.App.D.C. 383

Elizabeth DE GASTER, Joseph Philips and George Philips,
individually, and as administrator with the will Annexed, of
the Estate of Philip Philips, deceased, and of the Estate of
Adolph Philips, deceased, respectively, Appellants,
v.
Henry H. FOWLER, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States of America, Appellee.

No. 19367.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1965.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; William B. Jones, Judge. 247 F.Supp. 511 (1963).

Mr. Samuel Herman, with whom Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. John C. Eldridge, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. John W. Douglas, Mr. John C. Conliff, Jr., U.S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Mr. Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, TAMM and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

[*~515]1

This case came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

[*~516]2

On consideration whereof, and this court being in general agreement with the excellent opinion filed by the District Court in this case,

[*~518]3

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this case be, and it is hereby, affirmed.