green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
5.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…the weight and probative value of evidence are to be determined by the jury and not by the judge
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925
1975
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Union Pacific Railroad v. California Public Utilities Commission
there is a multitude of mechanical questions involved in determining the ... maintenance ... of ... locomotives ... all of which are covered by the
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.
the weight and probative value of evidence are to be determined by the jury and not by the judge
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.
the weight and probative value of evidence are to be determined by the jury and not by the judge
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
proper condition and safe to operate . . . without unnecessary peril
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Riley v. Wabash Railway Co.
Baltimore Ohio Railroad v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 , 531, 45 S.Ct. 169, 173 ( 69 L.Ed. 419 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Seeberger v. Burlington Northern Railroad
Accord Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 , 45 S. Ct. 169 , 69 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Seeberger v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
Accord Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 , 45 S.Ct. 169 , 69 L.Ed. 419 (1925); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Dixon, 189 F.2d 525 (5th Cir.1951); Stillman v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 811 F.2d 834 (4th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kohn v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
See Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 528 , 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 (1925); McCarthy v. Pennsylvania R.R., 156 F.2d 877, 879-80 (7th Cir.1946), ce rt. denied, 329 U.S. 812 , 67 S.Ct. 635 , 91 L.Ed. 693 (1947).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harding v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
See Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 , 45 S.Ct. 169 , 69 L.Ed. 419 (1925); see also Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 514 F.Supp. *223 1 (W.D.Tex.1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 969 , 102 S.Ct. 514 , 70 L.Ed.2d 386 (1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Glow v. Union Pacific Railroad
See, e.g., Groeger, 266 U.S. at 528-31 , 45 S.Ct. 169 ; Wilkerson, 336 U.S. at 60-61 , 69 S.Ct. 413 ; Anderson, 333 U.S. at 823 , 68 S.Ct. 854 ; Koske, 279 U.S. at 11 , 49 S.Ct. 202 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Compagnie Internationale De Produits Alimentaires S. A.
v.
Thomas W. Miller, as Alien Property Custodian of the United States of America, and Frank White, as Treasurer of the United States of America
v.
Thomas W. Miller, as Alien Property Custodian of the United States of America, and Frank White, as Treasurer of the United States of America
412.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 1925.
Mr. Challen B. Ellis, with whom Mr. Wade H. Ellis and Mr. Henry Escher were on the briefs, for appellant., Mr. Merrill E. Otis, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for appellees.
McReynolds.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Me. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The court below decided this cause upon authority of its opinion in Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 296 Fed. 1002, which upon appeal became No. 343 on our docket. The decree therein has been reversed for reasons stated in the opinion just announced, ante, p. 457. The two causes present the same issues. Consequently the challenged decree herein also must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with our conclusions.
Reversed.