green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Fenton v. Freedman
But cf. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Simpson, 404 F.2d 511, 514-15 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 988 , 89 S.Ct. 1470 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1968) (compulsory counterclaim can be held to give rise to federal jurisdiction where defendant counterclaimant has not objected to federal court’s assumption of jurisdiction over plaintiff’s main claim on ground that action is insufficient, and additionally files a compulsory counterclaim that exceeds $10,000) (dictum).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Fenton v. Freedman
But cf. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Simpson, 404 F.2d 511, 514-15 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 988 , 89 S.Ct. 1470 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1968) (compulsory counterclaim can be held to give rise to federal jurisdiction where defendant counterclaimant has not objected to federal court's assumption of jurisdiction over plaintiff's main claim on ground that action is insufficient, and additionally files a compulsory counterclaim that exceeds $10,000) (dictum).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cox v. Treadway
Accord Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 404 F.2d 1023, 1028 (6th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969) (action not commenced against "John Doe" defendants named in original complaint until Does identified and served with process). 79 Finally, appellants cannot benefit from the "imputed knowledge" doctrine of Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879 (6th Cir.1986), because the City of Louisville was never named as a defendant in this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cox v. Treadway
Accord Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 404 F.2d 1023, 1028 (6th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969) (action not commenced against “John Doe” defendants named in original complaint until Does identified and served with process).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hunter Industrial Facilities, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
See Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 653 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969) (noting that “findings may be clearly erroneous without being unreasonable so as to be upset under the substantial-evidence rule”) (emphasis added); Bernard Schwartz, Administrative Law § 10.11, at 605 (2d ed. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bradford National Life Insurance v. Union State Bank
See Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Simpson, 404 F.2d 511, 515-16 (7th Cir.1968) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in a diversity action where amount in controversy was exactly $10,000.00 — the then statutory amount), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 988 , 89 S.Ct. 1470 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Wilborn Stevens v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Lockheed Shipbuilding Co.
See Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 654 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cunningham v. COM., PENN. ST. POLICE
(2×)
See Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969) (permanent means that the disability is lasting or continuous as distinguished from temporary); Rose v. Thornton and Florence Electric Company, 4 Kan.App.2d 669, 609 P.2d 1180 (1980) (permanency of disability is determined by continuation for an indefinite or indeterminate period of time); Overland Construction v. Industrial Commission, 37 Ill.2d 525 , 229 N.E.2d 500 (1967) (disability for substantial period without substantial improvement is deemed permanent); Log…
discussed
Cited "see"
Colorado Ex Rel. Woodard v. Western Paving Construction Co.
See Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 404 F.2d 1023, 1028 (6th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969) (“[T]o toll the statute there must be affirmative acts or misrepresentations____ If, however, plaintiff’s cause of action is based on fraud, a different rule would apply.
cited
Cited "see"
Duncanson-Harrelson Company v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs
See Watson v. Gulf Stevedores Corp., 400 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
See Watson v. Gulf Stevedores Corp., 400 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Heller
See Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Simpson, 404 F.2d 511 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 988 , 89 S.Ct. 1470 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sharon Hageman, Admx. Of the Estate of Donald Hageman v. Signal L. P. Gas, Inc.
See Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 404 F.2d 1023, 1028 (6th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969); Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank, 455 F.2d 985 (3rd Cir. 1972); Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Company of America, 438 F.2d 1286, 1299 (5th Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 701 , 30 L.Ed.2d 736 (1972); Scalise v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 47 F.R.D. 148 (D.Del. 1969); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 15.15 [3] at n. 9.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The State of Texas v. Allan Construction Company, Inc.
See, e.g., Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 404 F.2d 1023, 1028 (6th Cir. 1968) (“The original fraud is regarded as a continuing affirmative act, and mere silence of the defendant is treated as concealment.”), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969); see also Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397 , 66 S.Ct. 582, 585 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (noting that where plaintiff has been diligent in pursuing fraud claim, statute is tolled even though there have been no acts of concealment). 9 . 446 F.2d 338 (5th Cir.1971). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
See also Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969) (stating that the substantial evidence formula for review “is not like a standard of weights and measures”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
See also Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969) (stating that the substantial evidence formula for review "is not like a standard of weights and measures").
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Base Billeting Fund, Laughlin Air Force Base v. Hernandez
See, e. g., Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Base Billeting Fund, Laughlin Air Force Base, and the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Manuela G. Hernandez and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Manuela G. Hernandez
See, e. g., Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 400 F.2d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1968), Cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1471 , 22 L.Ed.2d 755 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kaufman
v.
New York Central Railroad Co., now known as Penn Central Co.
v.
New York Central Railroad Co., now known as Penn Central Co.
No. 1135.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 1969.
Charles H. Brady for petitioner., George J. Gould and Richard F. Ellenberger for respondent.
Cited by 48 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion to change title of respondent from New York Central Railroad Co. to New York Central Railroad Co., now known as Penn Central Co., granted. Certio-rari denied.