Cutting v. Higley, 352 U.S. 883 (1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Cutting v. Higley, 352 U.S. 883 (1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
105 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cedar Brook Service Station, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (nyed, 1990-08-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Cedar Brook Service Station, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 134 (2d Cir.) cert. dismissed, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956).
discussed Cited "see" Oppel v. Empire Mutual Insurance
S.D.N.Y. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 134 (2d Cir.) (“No one will suggest that the first judge himself may not change his mind and overrule his own order”), appeal dismissed per stipulation, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956). .
cited Cited "see" Faulkner v. Sadowski
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 134-136 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956). .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Weeks
Fla. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Nunn, 46 Cal.2d 460 , 296 P.2d 813 (1966), appeal dismissed 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 126 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956); People v. Guagliata, 362 Ill. 427 , 200 N.E. 169 (1936); Smith v. State, 214 Ind. 169 , 13 N.E.2d 562 (1938); People v. Downes, 394 Mich. 17 , 228 N.W.2d 212 (1975).
cited Cited "see" First National Bank of Hollywood v. American Foam Rubber Corp.
2d Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 135 (2d Cir.), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956).
cited Cited "see" First National Bank Of Hollywood v. American Foam Rubber Corp.
1st Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 135 (2d Cir.), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956).
cited Cited "see" Francis Shunk Brown 3rd Esq. Trustee in Bankruptcy for I. J. Knight Realty Corp. v. Presbyterian Ministers Fund, a Pennsylvania Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corporation, 230 F.2d 131 , 231 F.2d 867 (2 Cir. 1956), appeal dismissed by stipulation, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 82 (1956).
cited Cited "see" William E. Burns v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1st Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 2 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 131 , 231 F.2d 867 , petition for cert. dismissed 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 .
cited Cited "see" Walter Jaconski v. Avisun Corporation and W. v. Pangborne & Co., Inc
3rd Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corporation, 231 F.2d 867 (2 Cir. 1956), appeal dismissed by stipulation, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956). 12 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of New York, New Haven and Hartford R. Co.
D. Conn. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 135 (2 Cir.), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956); IB Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 0.404[10] at 573-74.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Chrysler Corp. v. Superior Dodge, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Dictograph Products Company, Inc. v. Sonotone Corporation, 230 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir.), cert. dism’d, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance
3rd Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Dictograph Products Company v. Sonotone Corporation, 231 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1956), petition for certiorari dismissed by stipulation, 352 U.S. 883 , 77 S.Ct. 104 , 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956) ; Rule 10(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 6A Neither Jaconski nor Dic- to graph Products Company, however, involved the right of an appellate court to take judicial notice of developments in the proceeding since the appeal was lodged.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cutting
v.
Higley, Administrator of Veterans Affairs
No. 317.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 22, 1956.
352 U.S. 883
Claude L. Dawson for petitioners. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Melvin Richter and Lester S. Jayson for respondents.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published

The motion for leave to file brief of Queens County American Legion, Department of New York, as amicus curiae, is denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.