green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1959 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1959
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Riley v. Dow Chemical Co.
See, Ruud v. United States, 256 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 (1958) (Ruud was decided before the 1983 amendment of Rule 16 which eliminated the specific reference to limitation of experts but the general subject of limitation of proof is now encompassed by the global provision of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(4)).
cited
Cited "see"
Raines v. United States
See Stroud v. Benson, 254 F.2d 448, 450 (4th Cir.1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 (1958); Moon v. Freeman, 245 F.Supp. 837 , 839 n. 3 (E.D.Wash.1965).
cited
Cited "see"
Arlington Oil Mills, Inc. v. John A. Knebel, Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Birdsong Corporation, Intervenors Robert W. Moore, Movants-Appellants
See Stroud v. Benson, 155 F.Supp. 482, 490-91 (E.D.N.C.1957), vacated on other grounds, 254 F.2d 448 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hughes Tool Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross
(2×)
See Graham v. Jeoffroy Manufacturing, Inc., 5 Cir. 1958, 253 F.2d 72 , cert. denied, 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Hirschell L. Guynes and Mable Ann Guynes
See, e.g., Ruud v. United States, 256 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 (1958); Chapman v. United States, 169 F.2d 641 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 335 U.S. 860 , 69 S.Ct. 134 , 93 L.Ed. 406 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jaco v. State
See also United States v. Alker, 255 F.2d 851, 853 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 817 [ 79 S.Ct. 27 , 3 L.Ed.2d 59 ] (1958); United States v. Troback, 404 F.Supp. 1206, 1209 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d, 544 F.2d 513 (3d Cir.1976). [Emphasis added] 4 We note at the outset that there was no showing that Mrs. Templeton’s assertion met Professor McElhaney’s fourth requirement that “it must have dealt with facts within his [Mrs. Jaco’s] knowledge” or that Mrs. Templeton’s assertion was such that it met his seventh requirement that “the circumstances must naturally have called for a repl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James R. Nestor v. Lewis B. Hershey
See also Stroud v. Benson, 254 F.2d 448 (4th Cir.), cert. den., 358 U.S. 817 , 79 S.Ct. 28 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 59 (1958) (Secretary of Agriculture resides in District of Columbia); Ernst v. Secretary of Interior, 244 F.2d 344 , 17 Alaska 133 (9th Cir. 1957) (Secretary of Interior and Solicitor of Department of Interior reside in District of Columbia); Trueman Fertilizer Co. v. Larson, 196 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1952) (General Services Administrator resides in District of Columbia); Podovinnikoff v. Miller, 179 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1950) (Commissioner of Immigration resides in District of Columbia). 23 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reynolds
v.
Royal Mail Lines, Ltd.
v.
Royal Mail Lines, Ltd.
No. 103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 13, 1958.
Ben Margolis for petitioner.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.