green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
2.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1979 ·
…it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a difficult burden to meet.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Intern. Union, Uaw v. Nat. Caucus, Lab. Com.
it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a difficult burden to meet.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. National Caucus of Labor Committees
it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a difficult burden to meet.
cited
Cited "see"
W. T. Mayfield Sons Trucking Co. v. United States
See Watson Brothers Transportation Company, Inc. v. United States et al., D.C., 132 F.Supp. 905 aff’d per curiam 350 U.S. 927 , 76 S.Ct. 302 , 100 L.Ed. 810 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eagle Motor Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America
See, e. g., Carl Subler Trucking, Inc., 103 M.C.C. 307, 312 (1966), aff’d, Carl Subler Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 313 F.Supp. 971 (S.D.Ohio 1970). 9 . 358 U.S. at 144-45 , 79 S.Ct. 170 , citing United States v. Watson Brothers Transportation Co., 350 U.S. 927 , 76 S.Ct. 302 , 100 L.Ed. 810 (1956). 10 . 103 M.C.C. at 313 (emphasis added). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Theodore Caldes and Wellaine M. Lowery
See, e. g., Callanan v. United States, 223 F.2d 171 (8th Cir., 1955), cert. den. 350 U.S. 862 , 76 S.Ct. 102 , 100 L.Ed. 764 reh. den. 350 U.S. 926 , 76 S.Ct. 210 , 100 L.Ed. 810 (1955); United States v. Sweeney, 262 F.2d 272 (3rd Cir. 1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation Stockholders
v.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
v.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
No. 437.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1956.
Armistead B. Rood, Joseph B. Hyman, Cassius M. Clay and Sidney H. Willner for appellants. Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Robert W. Ginnane and Isaac K. Hay for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and William T. Griffin and Herbert Burstein for the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., appellees.
Cited by 55 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2)
[*926] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Per Curiam:The motion of Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation Stockholders Committee for leave to intervene or, in the alternative, to file brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.