green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 ·
…those who acquired seniority rights under a contract are bound by the possibility that the contract may be changed, and the rights thereunder revised or abrogated
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. John Merrill Hall, United States of America v. William King Nichols, United States of America v. James Kline Dever
(4×)
But see United States v. Sugden ( 226 F.2d 281 (9th 1955), affirmed per curiam, 76 S.Ct. 709 , 351 U.S. 916 [ 100 L.Ed. 1449 ] (1956)). 9 Id. at 2197 (emphasis added to text).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka And Santa Fe Railway Company
those who acquired seniority rights under a contract are bound by the possibility that the contract may be changed, and the rights thereunder revised or abrogated
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
those who acquired seniority rights under a contract are bound by the possibility that the contract may be changed, and the rights thereunder revised or abrogated
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Rose, Sr., United States of America v. James Hill
See United States v. Sugden, 226 F.2d 281, 286 (9th Cir. 1955) (dictum), aff’d, 351 U.S. 916 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1449 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Carmine G. Desapio
See Armstrong v. United States, 228 F.2d 764, 768 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 918 , 76 S.Ct. 710 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 (1956); Johnson v. United States, 291 F.2d 150, 156 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 880 , 82 S.Ct. 130 , 7 L.Ed.2d 80 (1961).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cornelius W. Sullivan
(2×)
See United States v. Behrens, 230 F.2d 504, 507 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 919 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1451 (1956).
cited
Cited "see"
Roberts v. Lehigh and New England Railway Company
See McMullans v. Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry., 229 F.2d 50 (C.A.10, 1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 918 , 76 S.Ct. 710 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 ; Goodin v. Clinchfield R.
cited
Cited "see"
Roberts v. Lehigh & New England Railway Co.
See McMullans v. Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry., 229 F.2d 50 (C.A.10, 1956), cert, denied, 351 U.S. 918 , 76 S.Ct. 710 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 ; Goodin v. Clinchfield R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Petition of Wills Lines, Inc., for Exemption From, or Limitation Of, Liability, Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Tankport Terminals, Inc., Claimant-Appellee- Cross-Appellant
(2×)
See In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509 , certiorari denied and leave to file petition for mandamus denied on April 30, 1956, 351 U.S. 917 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 . 3 The S.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Wills Lines, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509 , certiorari denied and leave to file petition for mandamus denied on April 30, 1956, 351 U.S. 917 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kevin Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Company
(2×)
See also In re Wills Lines, Inc., 227 F.2d 509, 510 (2d Cir.1955) (“When, by amendment in 1926, certain interlocutory appeals were permitted in admiralty cases, it was not contemplated that the dockets of appellate courts in the federal system should be burdened with all the odds and ends of interlocutory orders, most or all of which would in any event be reviewable on an appeal by an aggrieved party from a final decree”), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 917 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sharon Margaret Pavlak, Cross-Appellee v. John R. Church, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Boise, Cross-Appellants
See also United States v. Sugden, 226 F.2d 281, 284 (9th Cir.1955) (“The purpose of Section 605 is generally said to be to protect the ‘means’ of interstate communication” (footnote omitted)), aff’d, 351 U.S. 916 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1449 (1956) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shah
See also Sugden v. United States, 226 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1955) affirmed per curiam 351 U.S. 916 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1449 ; and Arrington v. United States, 350 F.Supp. 710 (E.D.Pa.1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bassis v. Universal Line
(2×)
Sec. 1292 (a)(3); see also In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509 , 510, cert. denied 351 U.S. 917 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bassis v. Universal Line, S.A.
(2×)
Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(3); see also In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509 , 510, cert, denied 351 U.S. 917 , 76 S.Ct. 709 , 100 L.Ed. 1450 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tankport Terminals, Inc.
v.
Wills Lines, Inc.
v.
Wills Lines, Inc.
No. 748.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 30, 1956.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2)
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Certio-rari denied. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is also denied.