green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Argonaut Insurance v. Halvanon Insurance
See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814, 815 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question and United States intervened).
discussed
Cited "see"
Yniguez v. Arizona
See Wallach v. Lieberman, 366 F.2d 254 , 258 n. 9 (2d Cir.1966) (noting that intervention under section 2403(b) is appropriate at any stage of the proceedings) (citing Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 1 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellants. Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. Rose Mofford, Individually and as Governor of the State of Arizona Robert Corbin, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellees
See Wallach v. Lieberman, 366 F.2d 254 , 258 n. 9 (2d Cir.1966) (noting that intervention under section 2403(b) is appropriate at any stage of the proceedings) (citing Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Krigel v. Belton (In re Belton)
See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 68 B.R. 105, 107, n. 3 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1986) ("Any question of whether the assignment of such power to the bankruptcy court converts it into an Article III court under the rule of Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961), can be obviated in this action by the district court’s treating the decision of the bankruptcy court as recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law and making its own decision on the basis thereof.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wallach v. Lieberman
See, e. g., Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 308 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question); id. at 885, 82 S.Ct. 140 (United States intervened) ; Supreme Court Rule 33, subd. 2(b). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wallach v. Lieberman
See, e.g., Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question); id. at 885 , 82 S.Ct. 140 (United States intervened); Supreme Court Rule 33, subd. 2(b) 10 The provisions of this chapter shall apply to employers and employees engaged in intrastate, and also interstate or foreign commerce, for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the congress of the United States, only to the extent that their mutual connection with intrastate work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguishable from int…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sunkist Growers, Inc., Et Al.
v.
Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. Et Al.
v.
Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. Et Al.
241.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1961.
Ross C. Fisher and Herman F. Selvin for petitioners. William C. Dixon for respondents.
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, which reads as follows:
“1. Where a group of citrus fruit growers form a cooperative organization for the purpose of collectively processing and marketing their fruit, and carry out those functions through the agency of three cooperative agricultural associations, each of which is basically wholly owned and governed by those growers, and each of which is admittedly entitled to the exemption from the antitrust laws accorded to agricultural cooperatives by the Capper-Volstead Act (7 U. S. C. A., sec. 291) — is an unlawful conspiracy, combination or agreement established under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act upon proof only that these growers, through the agency of these three cooperatives, agreed among only themselves with respect to the extent of the division of the function of processing between them or with respect to the price they would charge in the open market for the fruit and the by-products thereof processed and marketed by them?”