green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
D'Amico v. Cox Creek Refining Co.
(2×)
See Madden v. International Hod Carriers, 277 F.2d 688, 693 (7th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960); Vincent v. Restaurant Employees, 73 LRRM 2650, 2651 (N.D.N.Y.1969); cf. Sperandeo v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local Union No. 537, 334 F.2d 381 (10th Cir.1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur R. Mayr, Jr., and Carl L. Windham
(2×)
See Harrison v. United States, 279 F.2d 19, 24 (5th Cir., 1960), cert, den., 364 U.S. 864 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 ; Baiocchi v. United States, 333 F.2d 32, 35 (5th Cir., 1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corporation
See Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 275 F.2d 461 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864 , 81 S.Ct. 107 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Clarence E. Copeland v. United States
(2×)
See Goldsmith v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 305 , 277 F.2d 335 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 106 , 5 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Maurice J. Breen and Alyce J. Breen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Wattley v. Commissioner, 275 F.2d 461, 464 (2 Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 864 , 81 S.Ct. 107 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 . *62 There is a suggestion in the taxpayer’s brief that, because the fee was for services rendered in calendar years prior to 1954, it is the 1939 Code, rather than the 1954 Code, which applies.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eugene E. Turberville v. United States of America, Bernard T. Williams v. United States of America, James H. Simpson v. United States
See Goldsmith v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 305 , 277 F.2d 335 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 106 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960); Heideman v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 128 , 259 F.2d 943 (D.C.Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959 , 79 S.Ct. 800 , 3 L.Ed.2d 767 (1959); Porter v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 385 , 258 F.2d 685 (D.C.Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 906 , 79 S.Ct. 1289 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1257 (1959); Metoyer v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 62 , 250 F.2d 30 (D.C.Cir. 1957). . 8 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2250-2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961). . 367 U.S. 433, 448 , 81 …
discussed
Cited "see"
Philip N. McAbee v. United States
(2×)
See note 2a, Goldsmith v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 305 , 277 F.2d 335 , certiorari denied 1960, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 106 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 . 3 This trial preceded the decision in Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 4 Appellant's testimony disclosed six prior criminal convictions on various charges 5 The District Court charged: The defendant also says that the property that was found on his person he bought from someone whose name is Chester Helm.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosemary Pye, Regional Director, Etc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 122
(2×)
See, e.g., Madden v. International Hod Carriers’, Bldg. & Common Laborers’ Union of Am., Local No. 41, 277 F.2d 688, 690 (7th Cir.) (explaining that "[t]he ultimate determination on the merits as to whether a violation occurred is reserved exclusively for the Board, subject to judicial review” at the appropriate time), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nunziato Fusaro, United States v. Richard R. Saccone, United States v. Richard E. Robidoux
(2×)
Compare Harrison v. United States, 279 F.2d 19, 23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960) (specific intent is not an element), with United States v. Pollack, 503 F.2d 87, 91 (9th Cir. 1974) (specific intent is an element).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McLeod v. Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(2×)
See also Madden v. International Hod Carriers’, Bldg. and Common Laborers’ Union, etc., 277 F.2d 688 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960) (the scope, conduct or extent of the Board’s preliminary investigation is irrelevant in § 10 (Z) cases; only questions for the Court are whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, and whether an injunction should issue); McLeod, For and On Behalf of N. L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mcleod v. Local 239
(2×)
See also Madden v. International Hod Carriers', Bldg. and Common Laborers' Union, etc., 277 F.2d 688 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863 , 81 S.Ct. 105 , 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960) (the scope, conduct or extent of the Board's preliminary investigation is irrelevant in 10(l) cases; only questions for the Court are whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, and whether an injunction should issue); McLeod, For and On Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, etc., 300 F.2d 237 , 242 (2d Cir. 1962) (in petitioning for 10(l) i…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wallace
v.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
v.
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
No. 280.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1960.
Frank E. Everett, Jr. for petitioner. C. R. Bolton, D. W. Houston, Sr-., James L. Homire and Walter W. Dalton for respondent.
Published
Supreme Court of Mississippi. Certiorari denied.