green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Poindexter v. United States
See Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82-83 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969). 9 We are satisfied that the district court erred in applying Arizona substantive law on the basis of the receipt by the heirs of Arizona workmen's compensation benefits.
cited
Cited "see"
Poindexter ex rel. Poindexter v. United States
See Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82-83 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Laxalt v. McClatchy
Co., supra, pg. 446, 313 U.S. at 497 , 61 S.Ct. at 1022 ; see also Romero v. Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc., 400 F.2d 81, 82 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Anthony J. Vesich, Jr.
See also Hunt v. United States, 400 F.2d 306, 307-08 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969) (holding that a person who had given information to the government, resulting in the filing of a complaint, and who was expected to testify in future legal proceedings, was a witness within the meaning of section 1503 during the period between the preliminary hearing and convening of a grand jury); Odom v. United States, supra (holding that an individual was a witness after he had testified in a federal court hearing and was expected to testify in another hear…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mitchell
See, e. g., Hunt v. United States, 400 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 , 89 S.Ct. 629 , 21 L.Ed.2d 566 (1969); Stein v. United States, 337 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 907 , 85 S.Ct. 889 , 13 L.Ed.2d 795 (1965); United States v. Grunewald, 233 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957); Odom v. United States, 116 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 313 U.S. 544 , 61 S.Ct. 957 , 85 L.Ed. 1511 (1941); Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351 (8th Cir. 1921). 18 Section 1510 was intended to *1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Romero et ux.
v.
Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc.
v.
Ten Eyck-Shaw, Inc.
No. 697.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 1969.
Alfred C. Marquez for petitioners., Madison B. Graves for respondent.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.