green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band Of Seneca Indians
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, 249 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir.1957) (Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 , 134 (10th Cir.1959) (free exercise of religious beliefs under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967) (Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). 7 21 However, as acknowledged by those cases recognizing specific areas of tribal auth…
discussed
Cited "see"
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, 249 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir.1957) (Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958); Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 , 134 (10th Cir.1959) (free exercise of religious beliefs under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 533 (8th Cir.1967) (Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). 7 However, as acknowledged by those cases recognizing specific areas of tribal authori…
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jan Graham and Chickasaw Nation, by and Through Overton James, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation
(2×)
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958) (federal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian is a party or because the suit involves Indian property or contracts).
discussed
Cited "see"
Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, United States of America, and Department of Housing and Urban Development
See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 , 917 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958) (federal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian is a party or because the suit involves Indian property or contracts).
cited
Cited "see"
Ameejee Valleejee & Sons v. M/V Victoria U.
See Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F.2d 395, 402-03 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 997 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958) (court not bound to charge maximum legal rates of interest).
cited
Cited "see"
ca4 1981
See Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F.2d 395, 402-03 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 997 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958) (court not bound to charge maximum legal rates of interest).
cited
Cited "see"
Santiago v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
See Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F.2d 395 , 402, 1958 A.M.C. 800, 809-810 (3rd Cir.), cert. den. 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 997 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958); Interstate Steel Corp. v. SS.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Group Baron Long Capitan Grande Band of Digueno Mission Indians of Viejas Group Reservation
See Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 715 (9th Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 451 U.S. 911 , 101 S.Ct. 1983 , 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); see also Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915 , 917 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 998 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Navieros Inter-Americanos, S.A., Inc. v. M/V \Vasilia Express\""
See also Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F.2d 395, 399-400 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 997 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United Counties Trust Company v. Podvey
Aside from any authority virtute officii arising from his position as president of the bank (see Elblum Holding Corp. v. Mintz, 120 N.J.L. 604 (Sup. Ct. 1938) and cases cited therein; see also, Gardner v. The Calvert, 253 F. 2d 395 (3 Cir.1958), cert. den. 356 U.S. 960 , 78 S.Ct. 997 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 1067 (1958)) it is clear from the evidence, including the testimony of former employees of the Springfield State Bank, now employed by plaintiff and produced by plaintiff as witnesses, that Spears was given a free reign in the operations of the bank and, specifically, the loan department.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
(2×)
See also Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F. 2d 915 , 919 (CA10 1957), cert. denied, 356 U. S. 960 (1958) (applying Talton to Fifth Amendment due process claim); Groundhog v. Keeler, 442 F. 2d 674, 678 (CA10 1971).
Erwin
v.
Granquist, District Director of Internal Revenue
v.
Granquist, District Director of Internal Revenue
No. 917.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 19, 1958.
Warde H. Erwin, pro se, and for Mary Lou Erwin, petitioners., Solicitor General Rankin for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.