green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Orr
See United States v. Lopez, 459 F.2d 949, 953 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gary Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc.
See Bradshaw v. Thompson, 454 F.2d 75, 79 (6th Cir.) (accounting is extraordinary remedy available only when legal remedy inadequate), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corp.
(2×)
See, Bradshaw v. Thompson, 454 F.2d 75, 81 (6th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 ; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2290.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Samuel Kinsey, United States of America v. Albert Kinsey
See United States v. Lopez, 459 F.2d 949, 953 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972); United States v. Esposito, 492 F.2d 6, 10 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1135 , 94 S.Ct. 879 , 38 L.Ed.2d 760 (1974); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 376 (6th Cir.1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc.
See Aunt Mid, Inc. v. Fjell-Oranje Lines, 458 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) (“ ‘The plaintiff gambled when he shipped the cabbages in a ventilated hold rather than under refrigeration.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilfredo Acosta, and Cross-Appellee v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and Cross-Appellant. Wilfredo Acosta, and Cross-Appellee v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. And Daido Kogyo Company, Ltd., and Cross-Appellants
See Bradshaw v. Thompson, 454 F.2d 75, 81 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972). 29 Although defendants assert that such prejudice occurred here, the only support they offer are the conclusory statements that counsel was "misled" into delivering a "contradictory argument," Br. for Cross-Appellants at 37, and that the instruction "severely undermined the credibility of counsel," Reply Br. at 14.
discussed
Cited "see"
Acosta v. Honda Motor Co.
See Bradshaw v. Thompson, 454 F.2d 75, 81 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972). 29 Although defendants assert that such prejudice occurred here, the only support they offer are the conclusory statements that counsel was “misled” into delivering a “contradictory argument,” Br. for Cross-Appellants at 37, and that the instruction “severely undermined the credibility of counsel,” Reply Br. at 14.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
See Bradshaw v. Thompson, 454 F.2d 75 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972); Bertha Bldg.
cited
Cited "see"
Carl N. Walker, Administrator of the Estate of Norbert N. Walker, Deceased v. The Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, a Corporation, Eagle Star Insurance Group, Garnishee, Mary C. Flavin, Administratrix of the Estate of Wilbert F. Gries, Deceased v. The Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, a Corporation
See 93 S.Ct. 130 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,948 H. C. Colvin, O. M. Prigmore v. Dempsey-Tegeler & Co., Inc.
See also Spears v. Hough, 8 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 529 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 130 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bradshaw
v.
Thompson
v.
Thompson
No. 72-106.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1972.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.