green
Positive treatment
1.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Mull v. Colt Co.
See Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.), (dissenting opinion), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959); 2 Harper & James, Torts 1042 (1956); Seavey, Mr. Justice Cardozo and the Law of Torts, 52 Harv.L.Rev. 372, 381 (1939).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Merced v. Auto Pak Co.
See also Clark, J., dissenting in Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.) (interpreting Campo as not shifting “the basic inquiry as to the reasonable foreseeability of the danger to a sterile definitional quibble over whether the injury was caused by a ‘latent’ or a ‘patent’ defect”), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix Merced and Modesta Merced v. Auto Pak Co., Inc., S & C Liquidating Corp., Auto Pak Co., Inc., Third Party v. Southbridge Towers, Inc., Third-Party
See also Clark, J., dissenting in Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.) (interpreting Campo as not shifting "the basic inquiry as to the reasonable foreseeability of the danger to a sterile definitional quibble over whether the injury was caused by a 'latent' or a 'patent' defect"), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959). 9 We need not, however, take a position on whether the more charitable view of the Campo decision is correct, since Campo itself has been modified and the focus of our inquiry has been redirected by Bolm v. Triumph Corp., sup…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daviditis
v.
National Bank of Mattoon
v.
National Bank of Mattoon
No. 861.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1959.
359 U.S. 1012
Petitioners pro se.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.