green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1959 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1959
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Stein v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
See Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28, 31 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 989 , 79 S.Ct. 1118 , 3 L.Ed.2d 978 (1959)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mary Shoup Larry R. Shoup, Sr. v. Bell & Howell Company
(2×)
See 365 U.S. at 285 , 81 S.Ct. at 544 , citing Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1959) (affidavit a "procedural", rather than "jurisdictional", prerequisite), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 989 , 79 S.Ct. 1118 , 3 L.Ed.2d 978 (1959); United States v. Failla, 164 F.Supp. 307, 313 (D.N.J.1958) (affidavit requirement may be waived by defendant). 28 The policies underlying Rule 41(b) demonstrate that limitations dismissals do not constitute adjudications on the merits: 29 All of the dismissals enumerated in Rule 41(b) which operate as adjudications on the merits ... primarily involve situat…
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert James Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 27
See Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 359 U.S. 989 , 79 S.Ct. 1118 , 3 L.Ed.2d 978 (1959); Collins v. City of Wichita, 254 F.2d 837 (10th Cir. 1958); Berryhill v. United States, 199 F.2d 217 (6th Cir. 1952). 17 *651 III In United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 , 52 S.Ct. 460 , 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932), the Court held that it was the inherent right of a court of equity to modify an injunction in adaptation to changed circumstances which rendered the injunction an instrument of wrong.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phillips Chemical Co.
v.
Dumas Independent School District
v.
Dumas Independent School District
No. 769.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1959.
Clark M. Clifford, Carson M. Glass, Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner and C. J. Roberts for appellant., James W. Witherspoon and Earnest L. Langley for. appellee. Solicitor General Rankin and Assistant Attorney General Rice for the United States, as amicus ^curiae, in opposition to the motion of appellee to dismiss.
Published
[*987] Appeal from the Supreme Court of Texas. Probable jurisdiction noted. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief setting forth the views of the United States.
James W. Witherspoon and Earnest L. Langley for. appellee. Solicitor General Rankin and Assistant Attorney General Rice for the United States, as amicus ^curiae, in opposition to the motion of appellee to dismiss.