green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Environmental Action, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Act of Aug. 26, 1935, c. 687, 49 Stat. 803 et seq.; see In re United Corp., 232 F.2d 601, 604 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 839 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 (1956); 15 U.S.C. § 79a(c).
cited
Cited "see"
Environmental Action, Inc. v. Securities And Exchange Commission
Act of Aug. 26, 1935, c. 687, 49 Stat. 803 et seq.; see In re United Corp., 232 F.2d 601, 604 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 839 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 (1956); 15 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Egidio Cerilli, in No. 78-2105. Maylan Yackovich, in No. 78-2106. John Shurina, in No. 78-2107. Ralph Buffone, in No. 78-2439
(2×)
See U. S. v. Lowe, 234 F.2d 919 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 838 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 (1956); U. S. v. Augello, 451 F.2d 1167, 1170 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1070 , 92 S.Ct. 1518 , 31 L.Ed.2d 802 (1972). . 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (b)(2) (emphasis supplied).
cited
Cited "see"
Amp Incorporated v. Howard J. Foy, Jr.
HMH Publishing Co., at 717-719; Tisch Hotels at 612; see Dwight S. Williams v. Lykens Hosiery Mills, 233 F.2d 398, 401 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 840 , 77 S.Ct. 61 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 (1956).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George J. Hykel
See United States v. Lowe, 234 F.2d 919 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 838 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 (1956); United States v. Sweeney, 262 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1959); see generally 2 C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cities Service Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
See also, In re United Corporation, 3 Cir., 232 F.2d 601 , certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 839 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cities Service Company v. Securities And Exchange Commission
See also, In re United Corporation, 3 Cir., 232 F.2d 601 , certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 839 , 77 S.Ct. 59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 56 . 25 The policy underlying this is equally clear, and is not as limited as Cities contends, 'Although one of the purposes of the Act was the elimination of holding companies, another purpose was the elimination of evils which had become part of the corporate structure of registered holding companies and their subsidiaries * * *' In re United Corporation, 232 F.2d at page 606.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
General Protective Committee for Holders of Option Warrants of United Corporation
v.
United Corporation
v.
United Corporation
No. 251.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1956.
Henry S. Drinker, Thomas Reath, John Muljord and M. Quinn Shaughnessy for petitioners. Oscar H. Davis, then Acting Solicitor General, Thomas G. Meeker, Alexander Cohen and Ellwood L. Englander for the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Richard Joyce Smith, William S. Potter and William R. Sherwood for the United Corporation, respondents.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.