green
Positive treatment
1.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1954 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1954
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Tcf Film Corporation v. Gourley
But see Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Leahy, 3 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 302 , affirmed by an equally divided court, 344 U.S. 861 , 73 S.Ct. 102 , 97 L.Ed. 668 , and compare La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 249 , 77 S.Ct. 309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 290 6 For illustrations of the useful exercise of this power see In re Stein, D.C.E.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
S & E Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
(2×)
See, e. g., Bell Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 120 Ct.Cl. 398 , 100 F.Supp. 661 (1951), aff’d, 344 U.S. 860 , 73 S.Ct. 102 , 97 L.Ed. 668 (1952); McShain Co. v. United States, 83 Ct.Cl. 405 (1936); Maryland Dredging & Contracting Co. v. United States, 66 Ct.Cl. 627 (1929).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Bell Aircraft Corp.
v.
Bell Aircraft Corp.
No. 13.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 27, 1952.
Paul A. Sweeney argued the cause for the United States., With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Baldridge and Morton Hollander., Howard C. Westwood argued the cause for respondent., With him on the brief were Ansley W. Sawyer and W. Crosby Roper, Jr. John Lord O’Brian was also of counsel for respondent.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. With him on the brief were Ansley W. Sawyer and W. Crosby Roper, Jr. John Lord O’Brian was also of counsel for respondent.