green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Georgopoulos and Robert Skeries, Brady Winstead
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 100 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966) and 385 U.S. 814 , 87 S.Ct. 35 , 17 L.Ed.2d 55 (1966); United States v. Ryan, 232 F.2d 481, 482-83 (2d Cir.1956).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vazquez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (In Re Vazquez)
See Gass v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 357 F.2d 215, 220-21 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 943 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 541 (1966); Dempsey v. Holiday Utilities Corp., 107 Ill.App.3d 467, 476 , 63 Ill.Dec. 45, 52 , 437 N.E.2d 694, 701 (5th Dist.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 99 (2d Cir.) (“[i]t seems reasonable to impute to Congress an intent to outlaw all payments, with certain narrow statutory exceptions, from employer to union official”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966). *500 With respect to Section 186, the IRB found that “it is undisputed that Perrucci purchased the boat from an employer of Local 177 while Perrucci served as an officer of the Local.” (IRB Decision at 20.) The IRB also determined that “[o]ur review of the record of the [GEB] hearing…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Sumpter
See Gass v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 357 F.2d 215, 220-221 (7th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 943 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 541 (1966); Dempsey v. Holiday Utilities Corp., 107 Ill.App.3d 467, 476 , 63 Ill.Dec. 45, 52-53 , 437 N.E.2d 694, 701-702 (5th Dist.1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Calvi
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Schueler v. Roman Asphalt Corp.
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 100 (2d Civ.), cert. denied, 384 U.s. 942, 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mongelli
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McGuinness
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.) (indictment charging defendant with receiving payment both as representative of employees and as officer of labor union is proper, as these are separate offenses under the statute), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Cody
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 99 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William Barton, Anthony Chirico, Rosario Chirico, Dominic \Sonny\" Celestino
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Calder, Julius Calder, Thomas Didonato and George Monge
(2×)
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 94 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966). 6 The only other challenge to the verdict which merits comment involves the admission of certain evidence against Julius Calder.
discussed
Cited "see"
Holt v. City of Richmond
(2×)
See Toombs v. Fortson, D.C., 241 F. Supp. 65, 71 (1965), 384 U.S. 210 , 86 S. Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 482 .
cited
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. George J. Roberts & Sons, Inc., D/B/A the Roberts Press
See United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966); A. Cox & D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Caruso
See Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 , 95 S.Ct. 1792 , 44 L.Ed.2d 363 (1975); Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 , 105 S.Ct. 2455 , 85 L.Ed.2d 829 (1985); Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643 , 64 S.Ct. 1196 , 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944); NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 59 S.Ct. 668 , 83 L.Ed. 1014 (1939); see also United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 840 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Burton and Curtis B. Clark, Co-Partners, D/B/A Insco v. Hitachi America, Ltd., a New York Corporation
See also Gass v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 7 Cir., 357 F.2d 215, 220-221 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 943 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 541 , (1966); Bucher v. Krause, 7 Cir., 200 F.2d 576 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 997 , 73 S.Ct. 1114 , 97 L.Ed. 1404 (1953).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and John J. Gordon Company
Construing essentially the same phrase in the National Labor Relations Act, where Congress supplied a definition, § 2(7), the Supreme Court has held that the Act goes well beyond persons who are themselves engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 604-605, 59 S.Ct. 668 , 83 L.Ed. 1014 (1939); cf. NLRB v. Vulcan Forging Co., 188 F.2d 927, 930 (6 Cir. 1951); see also United States v. Ricciardi, 357 F.2d 91, 97-98 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 540 ; 385 U.S. 814 , 87 S.Ct. 35 , 17 L.Ed.2d 55 (1966) (interpreting the phrase �…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
See also Hanson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, 384 U.S. 211 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.Ed.2d 481 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maryland Citizens for a Representative General Assembly v. Governor of Maryland
(2×)
See, also, Toombs v. Fortson, 241 F.Supp. 65 , aff’d 384 U.S. 210 , 86 S.Ct. 1464 , 16 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TOOMBS ET AL.
v.
FORTSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL.
v.
FORTSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL.
1205.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1966.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.
Francis Shackelford, Edward S. White, Emmet J. Bondurant II, Israel Katz and Hamilton Lokey for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and E. Freeman Leverett, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.