green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 19×
24.8 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 1994–2018 · 5 courts ·
…he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 1982–2013 · 3 courts ·
…the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ralph Janvey v. Peter Romero
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Tori K. Collins
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Yesh Music, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
by using the phrase 'including, but not limited to,' the parties unambiguously stated that the list was not exhaustive.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Montgomery County, Maryland v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
obviously a tax upon the sale of building materials to be used on the real estate of a federal land bank is not a tax upon that real estate
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Marmon Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hawaiian Association of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Wong.
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ballanger v. Johanns
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principal.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation Brandi Standridge, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated Kenya Phillips, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Jackie Fitzgerald, an Oregon Resident, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated Samantha Brand, a Washington Resident, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Board of Trustees of Union Pacific Employees Health Service, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Amici on Behalf of Equal Employment Advisory Council Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Amici on Behalf of Olympia J. Snowe Harry Reid Patty Murray Barbara Milkulski Maria Cantwell, Senators Nita M. Lowey Louise M. Slaughter Diana Degette Chris Shays Betty McCollum Henry A. Waxman Sherrod Brown Donna M. Christensen Joseph Crowley Sam Farr Raul M. Grijalva Jane Harman Sheila Jackson Lee Eddie Bernice Johnson Dennis J. Kucinich Carolyn Maloney James P. McGovern Jerrold Nadler Jan Schakowsky Allyson Y. Schwartz Diane E. Watson Anthony D. Weiner Albert R. Wynn Rush D. Holt Jim Moran, Representatives, Amici on Behalf Of
he term including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Arizona State Board for Charter Schools v. U.S. Department of Education
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Leach v. State
we recently had occasion under other circumstances to point out that the term 'including' is not one of all embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Joel Andrew Wyatt, AKA \Lupine\" Rebecca Kay Smith"
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States
the term 'including' is not one of all embracing definition, but connotes simply and illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Merritt Yochum and Rose Marie Yochum, Debtors. United States of America v. Merritt Yochum and Rose Marie Yochum
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but simply connotes an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Robert B. Reich, Etc. v. Cambridgeport Air Systems, Inc.
he term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Joy P. Adams Roger D. Wensil v. Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Energy, Intervenor
including' is not of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Board Of Trade Of The City Of Chicago v. Securities And Exchange Commission
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Board of Trade v. Securities & Exchange Commission
the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maryland Economic Development Corp. v. Montgomery County
In that case, the statute stated, “every Federal land bank ... shall be exempt from Federal, State, municipal, and local taxation.” Id. at 99, 62 S.Ct. at 3 (alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Eyecare v. Department of Human Services
Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 4 , 86 L.Ed. 65, 70 (1941) (under certain circumstances “the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”); TLC Home Health Care, 638 N.W.2d at 713 (determining the phrase “home health services include the following services and items” to restrict or limit the class of covered services).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Eyecare Vs. Department Of Human Services
Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 , 62 S. Ct. 1, 4 , 86 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brink Electric Construction Co. v. State, Department of Revenue
(2×)
Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 96 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 4 , 86 L.Ed. 65, 70 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Trusko
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yvonne N. AJUGWO, Defendant-Appellant
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 3-4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941) (the term “including” is not an “all embracing” term).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. State of Michigan
(2×)
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michigan
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 5 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. State of Mich.
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 5 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization George R. Reilly Iris Stankey William M. Bennett Richard Nevins Kenneth Cory Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the California State Board of Equalization Bank of America N.T. & S.A., a National Banking Association and David Cordier, Individually and in His Capacity as Employee of the California State Board of Equalization the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization Reilly, George R. Stankey, Iris Bennett, William M. Nevins, Richard & Cory, Kenneth Individually & in Their Official Capacities as Members of the California State Board of Equalization
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 3-4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, Washington-Baltimore Local v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 887, 889-90 (D.C.Cir.1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California State Board of Equalization
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 3-4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, Washington-Baltimore Local v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 887 , 889-90 (D.C.Cir.1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Maine
See Feder al Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 5 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941). 4 Federal credit unions are also authorized to act as fiscal agents of the United States and as depositories of public money, 12 U.S.C. § 1767 , functions which have been recognized as important purposes of the federal government.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. State of Me.
See Federal *1059 Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 5 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941). [4] Federal credit unions are also authorized to act as fiscal agents of the United States and as depositories of public money, 12 U.S.C. § 1767 , functions which have been recognized as important purposes of the federal government.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'cheskey
See Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110 , 74 S.Ct. 403 , 98 L.Ed. 546 , and Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 . 5 This court considered the same tax in United States v. State of N. M., 581 F.2d 803 (10th Cir.), and decided that the sovereignty of the United States did not prevent the imposition of this tax on a contractor providing services to the federal government on federal lands.
cited
Cited "see"
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'cheskey
See Kern-Lim erick, Inc. v. Seurlock, 347 U.S. 110 , 74 S.Ct. 403 , 98 L.Ed. 546 , and Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 .
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. State
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941), and the Annotation in 7 L.Ed.2d 884 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. STATE TAX COM'N OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck, 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists v. National Labor Relations Board
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Argosy Limited v. Hennigan, 404 F.2d 14, 20 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 1957); Penello v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO, 291 F.Supp. 409, 414 (D.C.Md.1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. National Labor Relations Board
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Argosy Limited v. Hennigan, 404 F.2d 14, 20 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 1957); Pe-nello v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO, 291 F.Supp. 409, 414 (D.C.Md.1968).
cited
Cited "see"
FIRST NAT. BK. OF MAYWOOD v. Jones
See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99 , 86 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Las Vegas Monorail Co.
See also Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941) (federal land bank a federal instrumentality given its important governmental function); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964 , 100 S.Ct. 450 , 62 L.Ed.2d 376 (1979) (Federal National Mortgage Association is federal government instrumentality given its important governmental function). *777 These differing uses and definitions underscore that no unique or canonical meaning of “instrumentality” exists.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
T I Federal Credit Union v. DelBonis
Perhaps the most “significant factor in determining whether a particular entity is a federal instrumentality is whether it performs an important government function.” United States v. Michigan, 851 F.2d 803, 806 (6th Cir.188); see also Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Chambers
American Surety Co. v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513, 517 , 53 S.Ct. 260, 261 , 77 L.Ed. 466 (1933); See also Federal Land Bank v. Bismark Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941) (noting that the phrase “includes” are not limiting).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Intercounty Construction Corp. v. District of Columbia
(2×)
See, e.g., Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 3-4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); American Federation of Television and Radio Artists v. NLRB, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 275 , 462 F.2d 887, 890 (1972); 20A Words and Phrases 152-55 (1959).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maryland
See also, Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Company, 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. State of Md.
See also, Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Company, 314 U.S. 95 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941). [13] See Footnote on p. 12A. 50 U.S.C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Karl R. Huber
See, e. g., Federal Land Bank of St Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Automatic Devices Corp.
v.
Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.
v.
Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.
6.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 10, 1941.
Mr. Drury W. Cooper, with whom Messrs. Henry M. Huxley and Thomas J. Byrne were on the brief, for petitioner., Messrs. Russell Wiles and Bernard A. Schroeder, with whom Mr. George A. Chritton was on the brief, for respondent.
Douglas.
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (3) · Eighth Circuit (3) · Ninth Circuit (3) · Eleventh Circuit (2) · Seventh Circuit (2) · First Circuit (1) · Third Circuit (1)
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F. 2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is
Affirmed.