green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Lone Mountain Processing, Inc. v. Bowser Morner, Inc.
(2×)
See Uptagrafft v. United States, 315 F.2d 200, 203 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 (1963) (stating that indemnity is a right "generally based upon contract," which "means compensation for loss already sustained"); First Vir- ginia Bank-Colonial v. Baker, 225 Va. 72, 77 , 301 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1983) (stating that "a contract of indemnity is a bilateral agreement between an indemnitor and an indemnitee in which the indemnitor promises to reimburse his indemnitee for loss suffered or to save him harmless from liability").
discussed
Cited "see"
Kayne v. Painewebber Inc.
See Dickinson v. Heinold Securities, Inc., 661 F.2d 638, 643 (7th Cir.1981) (“It is axiomatic that the ‘parties are bound to arbitrate all matters, not explicitly excluded, that reasonably fit within the language used.’ ”) (Quoting United Textile Workers of America v. Newberry Mills, Inc., 315 F.2d 217, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 54 , 11 L.Ed.2d 53 (1963)).
cited
Cited "see"
Teofilo Evangelista and Frances Evangelista v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Estate of Sheaffer v. Commissioner, 313 F.2d 738 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 55 , 11 L.Ed.2d 53 (1963). 14 .
cited
Cited "see"
Dunkley Refrigerated Transport, Inc. v. United States
See Roadway Express, Inc. v. United States, 213 F.Supp. 868, 878 (D.Del.1963), aff’d, 375 U.S. 12 , 84 S.Ct. 53 , 11 L.Ed.2d 38 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mary Eileen Meeker v. United States
See generally 16 A.L.R.3d 1394 , 1402-1404 Cf. Uptagrafft v. United States, 315 F.2d 200 , 202 n. 1 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 54 , 11 L.Ed.2d 52 (1963); Van Houten v. Ralls, supra; Noga v. United States, supra. Moreover, as was recognized in Driggers, v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 1377 (D.S.C.1970), where the court was presented with a contention identical to that made here, when Congress enacted the 1966 amendment to the Tort Claims Act providing for increased agency consideration of tort claims and requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to suit, the…
discussed
Cited "see"
Vulcan Materials Company v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 2176
(2×)
Accord United Textile Workers v. Newberry Mills, Inc., W.D.S.C.1965, 238 F.Supp. 366, 373 , aff’d. 4 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 217 , cert. den. 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 54 , 11 L.Ed.2d 53 ; Portland Web Pressmen’s Union v. Oregonian Pub.
discussed
Cited "see"
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Co. v. United States
See Roadway Express, Inc. v. United States, 213 F.Supp. 868 , 873 nn. 18 & 19 (D.C.Del.1963), aff’d, 375 U.S. 12 , 84 S.Ct. 53 , 11 L.Ed.2d 38 (1963). 7 . 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (e) ; 5 U.S.C.A. § 1007 (b). 8 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James S. Myers, Individually and for His Wife, Harriet Myers, and as Natural Guardian and Next Friend of James Myers, a Minor
See Uptagrafft v. United States, 315 F.2d 200, 204 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 54 , 11 L.Ed.2d 52 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Eastern Central Motor Carriers Ass'n v. United States
See Roadway Express, Inc. v. United States, 213 F.Supp. 868 , 873 nn. 18 & 19 (D.C.Del.1963), affd, 375 U.S. 12 , 84 S. Ct. 53 , 11 L.Ed.2d 38 (1963). . 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (1958). .
cited
Cited "see"
U. S. A. C. Transport, Inc. v. United States
See cases cited in Roadway Express, Inc. v. United States, D.C.Del., 213 F.Supp. 868, 873 , aff’d 375 U.S. 12 , 84 S.Ct. 53 , 11 L.Ed.2d 38 . 4 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rambone v. Critzer
See also, Uptagrafft v. United States, 315 F.2d 200 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 375 U.S. 818 , 84 S.Ct. 54 , 11 L.Ed.2d 52 (1963).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Davis
v.
Tennessee Valley Authority
v.
Tennessee Valley Authority
No. 173.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 1963.
John P. Witsil for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox and Charles J. McCarthy for respondent.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.