green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman Motors Corporation v. Alfa Romeo SpA
See Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co. v. Massey-Ferguson Ltd., 210 F.Supp. 930 (D.Utah 1962), aff’d per curiam, 325 F.2d 713 (10 Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 931 , 84 S.Ct. 1334 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964); Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., Trade Reg.Rep. (1957 Trade Cas.) ¶ 68,653 at p. 72,656 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
See also Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Company v. Massey-Ferguson Limited, 210 F.Supp. 930, 933 (D.Ut.1962), aff'd, 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 , 84 S.Ct. 1334 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 *259 (1964) (a conspiracy which has an impact within the district does not constitute transacting business for purposes of venue under Section 12).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Breit
Co., 103 Ariz. 160, 162 , 438 P.2d 311, 313 (1968); see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hallatt, 326 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir.) (“We recognize that an appellate court’s power to depart from its own ruling on a former appeal should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.”), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 932 , 84 S.Ct. 1335 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Beck Industries, Inc.
See, e.g., Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co., 325 F.2d 713 (10 Cir.1963) (per curiam), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 , 84 S.Ct. 1334 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964), in which it was held that a federal district court sitting in Utah could take jurisdiction of a Canadian corporation because that corporation's "interlocking and integrated control" of its Utah subsidiary, by virtue of which it directed the subsidiary's activities in detail, constituted "doing business" within the state.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rothberg v. Kirschenbaum
See, e.g., Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co., 325 F.2d 713 (10 Cir.1963) (per curiam), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 , 84 S.Ct. 1334 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964), in which it was held that a federal district court sitting in Utah could take jurisdiction of a Canadian corporation because that corporation’s “interlocking and integrated control” of its Utah subsidiary, by virtue of which it directed the subsidiary’s activities in detail, constituted “doing business” within the state.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis, Circuit Clerk and Registrar of Elections
v.
Kennedy, Attorney General
v.
Kennedy, Attorney General
No. 938.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1964.
Joe T. Patterson, Attorney-General of Mississippi, Dugas Shands and Guy N. Rogers, Assistant Attorneys General, and Peter M. Stockett, Jr. and William A. Attain, Special Attorneys General, for petitioner., Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Gerald P. Choppin for respondent.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.