green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.4 score
“ther courts in applying the law of the case rule have held that a lower court is not bound to follow the mandate of an appellate court if the mandate is, in the interim, affected by an authority superior to the court issuing the mandate”
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wilson v. Great American Industries, Inc.
ther courts in applying the law of the case rule have held that a lower court is not bound to follow the mandate of an appellate court if the mandate is, in the interim, affected by an authority superior to the court issuing the mandate
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp.
See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 178 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968). .
cited
Cited "see"
Pitchford Scientific Instruments Corp. v. Pepi, Inc.
See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New England Insurance v. Healthcare Underwriters Mutual Insurance
But a- mandate is controlling only “as to matters within its compass.... ” Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 , 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939); see also Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 178 (2d Cir.1967) (declining to extend the Supreme Court mandate rule to cover situations in which an intervening statute changes the law after the Supreme Court issues its mandate, but noting that “[o]f course [the mandate rule] does not apply to matters left open by the mandate” (citing Sprague)), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New England Insurance Company v. Healthcare Underwriters Mutual Insurance Company
But a mandate is controlling only "as to matters within its compass...." Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 , 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939); see also Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 178 (2d Cir.1967) (declining to extend the Supreme Court mandate rule to cover situations in which an intervening statute changes the law after the Supreme Court issues its mandate, but noting that "[o]f course [the mandate rule] does not apply to matters left open by the mandate" (citing Sprague )), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank
"The major underpinning of the act of state doctrine is the policy of foreclosing court adjudications involving the legality of acts of foreign states on their own soil that might embarrass the Executive Branch of our Government in the conduct of our foreign relations." Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 697 , 96 S.Ct. 1854, 1862 , 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976) (plurality opinion) (citing Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 427-28, 431-33 , 84 S.Ct. at 941-42 ); see also Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 180 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
“The major underpinning of the act of state doctrine is the policy of foreclosing court adjudications involving the legality of acts of foreign states on their own soil that might embarrass the Executive Branch of our Government in the conduct of our foreign relations.” Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 697 , 96 S.Ct. 1854, 1862 , 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976) (plurality opinion) (citing Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 427-28, 431-33 , 84 S.Ct. at 941-42 ); see also Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 180 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramon Ruiz and Anita Ruiz v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior
(2×)
See, e. g., Udall v. Battle Mountain Co., 385 F.2d 90, 94-96 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 957 , 88 S.Ct. 1041 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Francis Curry, Jr.
Compare Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 , 75 S.Ct. 403 , 99 L.Ed. 436 (1955) with United States v. Spiro, 384 F.2d 159 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1028 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Battle Mountain Co.
v.
Udall, Secretary of the Interior
v.
Udall, Secretary of the Interior
No. 983.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 4, 1968.
William Braly Murray for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Marts, Roger P. Marquis and A. Donald Mileur for respondent.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. New York (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.