green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth Clark and Eric Romandi
See United States v. Kohne, 358 F.Supp. 1053 (W.D.Pa.1973), affirmed 48. 5 F.2d 679 , 682, 487 F.2d 1394 , 1395, cert. denied 417 U.S. 918 , 94 S.Ct. 2624 , 41 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) (where there was strong evidence of conspiracy, fact that defendants convicted of substantive gambling charge were acquitted of conspiracy did not retroactively render inadmissible hearsay declarations of *404 co-conspirators).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas H. May and David C. Vigil, for Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
(2×)
See Cantor v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 353 F.Supp. 1307 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir.). 14 Affirmed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Royal Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance
See, e.g., Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Co-Operative, 463 F.2d 470 , cert. denied, 410 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 966 , 35 L.Ed.2d 278 , on remand, 58 F.R.D. 646 , aff'd 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir.1972); Gottesfeld v. Mechanics & Traders Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Royal Ins. Co.(UK) Ltd. v. Ideal Mut. Ins. Co.
See, e.g., Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Co-Operative, 463 F.2d 470 , cert. denied, 410 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 966 , 35 L.Ed.2d 278 , on remand, 58 F.R.D. 646 , aff'd 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir.1972); Gottesfeld v. Mechanics & Traders Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McDonald v. United States
Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, supra, 491 Pa. at 574 n. 17, 421 A.2d 1027 ; Brodie v. Philadelphia Transport Co., 415 Pa. 296 , 203 A.2d 657 (1959); see also Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F.Supp. 1143, 1150 (E.D.Pa.), aff’d, 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir.1973); Larsen v. IBM Corp., 87 F.R.D. 602, 610-11 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
That Moore’s earnings increased after the accident does not bar recovery for loss of future earning capacity; in fact, “a comparison of earnings before and after the injuries is not a particularly significant or controlling consideration where there was evidence before the jury to support the conclusion that ... the injuries will adversely affect plaintiff’s future employment possibilities.” Lawrence v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 319 F.2d 805, 809 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 443 , 11 L.Ed.2d 313 (1963); see also Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F.Supp. 1143 (E.D…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandra G. Moore v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, a Corporation v. Rollyson's Catering Service, Inc., a Corporation, Sandra G. Moore v. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, a Corporation v. Rollyson's Catering Service, Inc., a Corporation
That Moore's earnings increased after the accident does not bar recovery for loss of future earning capacity; in fact, "a comparison of earnings before and after the injuries is not a particularly significant or controlling consideration where there was evidence before the jury to support the conclusion that the injuries will adversely affect plaintiff's future employment possibilities." Lawrence v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 319 F.2d 805, 809 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 443 , 11 L.Ed.2d 313 (1963); see also Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F.Supp. 1143 (E.D.Pa.1973), a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alexander
v.
Saks
v.
Saks
72-2006.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 9, 1973.
487 F.2d 1394
Published
Alexander
v.
Saks
72-2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit
11/9/73
1
M.D.Pa.
AFFIRMED