United States v. Lindsey, 486 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Lindsey, 486 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pate v. United States (dcd, 2004-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Pate v. United States
D.D.C. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodward v. Rogers, 344 F.Supp. 974 , 980 n. 10 (D.D.C.1972) (reflecting on whether notice was needed to alert the Rule (b)(2) class of the pending action, the Court determined that “where the adequacy of the representation of the class interests by the named parties is clear, where no apparent purpose would be served by notice to this wide-ranging class even if notice were at all practicable, and where, indeed, judgment is in favor the of class, the essential requisites of due process have been met without further notice”), aff'd without opinion 486 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir.1973); see also …
discussed Cited "see" 9 Fair empl.prac.cas. 211, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9931 Sandra Wetzel and Mari Ross, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Equal Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 , 85 S.Ct. 1136 , 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965) 39 Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 292 F.Supp. 619, 636 (D.Kan.1968) ('the essential requisite of due process as to absent members of the class is not notice, but the adequacy of representation of their interests by named parties'); Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472 (S.D.N.Y.1968) ('adequacy of representation, not form of notice, is the crucial consideration'); see Woodward v. Rogers, 344 F.Supp. 974, 980 (D.D.C.1972), aff'd, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 57 , 486 F.2d 1317 (1973) ('where the adequacy of the representation of the …
discussed Cited "see" Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
3rd Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 292 F.Supp. 619, 636 (D.Kan.1968) (“the essential requisite of due process as to absent members of the class is not notice, but the adequacy of representation of their interests by named parties”); Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (“adequacy of representation, not form of notice, is the crucial consideration”); see Woodward v. Rogers, 344 F.Supp. 974, 980 (D.D.C.1972), aff’d, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 57 , 486 F.2d 1317 (1973) (“where the adequacy of the representation of the class interests by the named parties is clear, where no apparen…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Dearth v. Holder
D.D.C. · 2012 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Woodward v. Rogers, 344 F.Supp. 974, 988 (D.D.C.1972), aff'd per curiam, 486 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir.1973) (table) (invalidating loyalty oath requirement for passports).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Lindsey
72-1097.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 15, 1973.
486 F.2d 1317
Published

486 F.2d 1317

159 U.S.App.D.C. 57

U. S.
v.
Lindsey

71-1274, 72-1097

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit

11/15/73

D.C.D.C., 324 F.Supp. 55

1

AFFIRMED IN PART VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED[*]

*

The judgment or order is accompanied by a Memorandum explanatory of the judgment. Such memorandum is not included with the opinions of the Court that are printed, and it may not be cited in briefs or memoranda of counsel as precedents, under local rule