green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.0 score
“ection 1655 is a venue provision allowing suits to be brought in rem to enforce a lien or claim on or remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where the suit is brought.”
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lifestyle Publications, LLC v. Harding
ection 1655 is a venue provision allowing suits to be brought in rem to enforce a lien or claim on or remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where the suit is brought.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scherer v. LABORERS'INTERN. UNION OF N. AMERICA
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 73 commend d (1981); Restatement of Contracts § 84(d) (1932); Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856, 860-61 (10th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1020 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969); Philips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Ind. Cory, v. Leavens, 421 F.2d 39 , 47 (3d Cir.1970).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
General Intermodal Logistics Corporation, a Corporation, D/B/A Gilco Marine Transport Services v. Mainstream Shipyards & Supply, Inc., a Corporation
(4×)
After entering the contract, Morrison became aware that Cisco had assigned or would assign the proceeds of the spraying contract to Deming National Bank (bank). 404 F.2d at 859.
cited
Cited "see"
Donald J. Johnson v. Seacor Marine Corp., Seacor Marine Corp., Defendant-Third-Party v. Gray Insurance Co., Third-Party Gray Insurance Co., Third-Party Donald Fleming v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc., Seacor Marine, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party v. Gray Insurance Co. Production Management Industries, L.L.C., Third-Party, Gerald W. Hoffpauir, Production Management Industries, L.L.C. Gray Insurance Co., Intervenor Plaintiffs-Counter v. Seacor Marine, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant
See Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856, 861 (10th Cir.1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Seacor Marine Corp.
See Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856, 861 (10th Cir.1968).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Conway
See generally, Morris Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1020 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re the Estate of Hoffman
See Morrison Flying Service v. Doming Nat’l Bank, 404 F. 2d 856 , 861 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. den. 393 U. S. 1020 , 89 S. Ct. 628 , 21 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Petra Group Inc
See Doc. 1, Compl., ¶ 9. - 4 - Cash Reg. Co., 112 F.2d 877, 880 (4th Cir. 1940)); see also Morrison Flying Serv. v. Deming Nat’l Bank, 404 F.2d 856 , 862 (10th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hutchinson
See also, Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1020 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Travelers Indemnity Company
See e.g., Maganas v. Northroup, 135 Ariz. 573 , 663 P.2d 565, 567-68 (1983) (person found third party beneficiary where contract manifested intention to confer a direct benefit on him). 12 ASC argues that sufficient consideration for the release was given despite any preexisting duty it might have under the Propipe-ASC purchase order to make payments by joint check, relying principally on Morrison Flying Service v. Deming National Bank, 404 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1020 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hart v. Hart (In Re Hart)
An “equitable lien” is the “right, not recognized at law, to have a fund or specific property, or its proceeds, applied to *960 the payment of a debt.” 6 Debtor-Creditor Law ¶ 26.02(C)(2) (Mathew Bender 1982); See also Morrison Flying Service v. Deming Nat’l Bank, 404 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1020 , 89 S.Ct. 628 , 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lester SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Wilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Wilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee
26431.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 12, 1968.
404 F.2d 856
C. O. Brown, Alexandria, La., for appellant., Edward L. Shaheen, U. S. Atty., Leven H. Harris, Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Wisdom, Godbold, Hughes.
Published
Citer courts: D. Kansas (1)
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed application for Social Security benefits under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.A. 416 (i). The only issue is whether the decision of the Secretary holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that he is under a disability as defined in the Act is supported by substantial evidence to support the administrative determination. On the administrative record the district court answered this question affirmatively and granted summary j'udgment for the Secretary. The record discloses this requisite substantial evidence. It follows that the j'udgment for the Secretary was properly entered and is accordingly affirmed. Celebrezze v. Kelly, 331 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1964); Clinch v. Celebrez-ze, 328 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1964), Cele-brezze v. O’Brient, 323 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1963); Bowen v. Gardner, 356 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1966).