green
Positive treatment
2.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952
1989
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land
(2×)
See Seiden v. Larson, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 258 , 188 F.2d 661 , certiorari denied 341 U.S. 950 , 71 S.Ct. 1017 , 95 L.Ed. 1373 ; see also Breen v. Housing Authority of City of Pittsburg, D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 119 F.Supp. 320 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose v. Bartle
(2×)
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1327, at 490-91 (footnotes omitted); see also Park-In Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., 81 F.Supp. 466, 470 (D.Del.1948) (considering on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the terms of the operative contract which had been incorporated as an exhibit), aff'd per curiam, 185 F.2d 407 (3d Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 950 , 71 S.Ct. 1017 , 95 L.Ed. 1373 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose, Joseph, in No. 88-1634 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A. Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County. (d.c.civ. No. 86-6255). Reed, Trudy W., in No. 88-1646 v. Bartle, Paul B., Banning, Rita C., Demaioribus, James R., Collectively as the Salary Board of Montgomery County, Bartle, Paul, Individually, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, Republican Party of Montgomery County, Commissioners of the County of Montgomery (d.c.civ. No. 87-6405). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 86-6963). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, and Republican Party of Montgomery County, Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 87-3927). Appeal of Frederick Hill, Kolimaga, Walter, in No. 88-1653 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil No. 87-0804)
(2×)
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1327, at 490-91 (footnotes omitted); see also Park-In Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., 81 F.Supp. 466, 470 (D.Del.1948) (considering on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the terms of the operative contract which had been incorporated as an exhibit), aff'd per curiam, 185 F.2d 407 (3d Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 950 , 71 S.Ct. 1017 , 95 L.Ed. 1373 (1951) The case law demonstrates, however, that the types of exhibits incorporated within the pleadings by Rule 10(c) consist largely of documentary evidence, specifically, contrac…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Seiden
v.
Larson
v.
Larson
No. 698.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 4, 1951.
Norman Winer and Alfred B. Nathan for petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Vanech and Roger P. Marquis for respondents.
Published
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.