green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1954 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1954
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mistretta v. S. S. Ocean Evelyn
Co., 135 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1943); Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.2d 910 (4th Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 887 , 72 Sup. Ct. 178, 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951); Cellini v. Moss, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 114 , 232 F. 2d 371 (D.C.Cir.1956); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Cooper Wells & Co., 234 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1956); Roucher v. Traders & Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Clark v. BH Holland Co., Inc.
(2×)
See Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.2d 910, 915 (4th Cir.) (holding that summary judgment is not appropriate unless “it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved and inquiry into the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law”), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kidder v. Anderson
(2×)
See Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 910 , cert. denied, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lloyd v. Gerber Products Company
(2×)
See Pierce v. Ford Motor Co.. 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 910 , cert. denied, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951).
examined
Cited "see"
The Washington Post Company v. Eugene J. Keogh
(4×)
See Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 910 , cert. denied, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tyndall v. United States
(2×)
See also Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.2d 910, 915 (4th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marguerite Jamieson v. Woodward & Lothrop
(2×)
Vale v. Bonnett, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 116, 119 , 191 F.2d 334, 337 ; see also Pierce v. Ford Motor Co., 4 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 910, 915 , certiorari denied 1951, 342 U.S. 887 , 72 S.Ct. 178 , 96 L.Ed. 666 ; Kaufman v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 723, 727 , certiorari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 947 , 76 S.Ct. 321 , 100 L.Ed. 825 . 16 As the majority states, “It was not necessary that her [the plaintiff’s] evidence be proffered,” on a motion for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Katherine Rettig v. United States
(2×)
Moreover, appellant was immediately advised that 'he did not have to make a statement; that any statement he might make could be used against him; and that he was entitled to an attorney.' Id., at page 913; see also dissenting opinion in Green v. United States, supra, note 4 See also Haines v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 546 , certiorari denied 1951, 342 U.S. 888 , 72 S.Ct. 172 , 96 L.Ed. 666 . 21 Rule 5(a) 22 18 U.S.C. § 3041 (1951) 23 See notes 4 and 20, supra 1 1943, 318 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 2 1955, 350 U.S. 949 , 76 S.Ct. 324 3 United States v. Carignan, 1951, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ford Motor Co.
v.
Pierce
v.
Pierce
No. 406.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 26, 1951.
Aubrey R. Bowles, Jr. for pétitioner., George E. Allen for respondents.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
[*887] C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
George E. Allen for respondents.