green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.3 score
“whatever merits this solution may have, a court injunction would not be an act of neutrality.”
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, and Its District Lodge 100 v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
whatever merits this solution may have, a court injunction would not be an act of neutrality.
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanco v. Banco Industrial De Venezuela
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696 , 698 & n. 5 (2d Cir.) (stockholders not entitled to bring derivative action under law of Venezuela), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanco v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, S.A.
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696 , 698 & n. 5 (2d Cir.) (stockholders not entitled to bring derivative action under law of Venezuela), ce rt. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kreindler v. Marx
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962); Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v. Helen Shop Inc., 235 F.Supp. 640 (S.D.N.Y.1964); and Gallup v. Caldwell, 120 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
Goldberg v. Meridor
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Goldberg v. Meridor
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Milton
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 696 , 93 A.L.R.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Milton
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 696 , 93 A.L.R.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Flight Engineers' International Ass'n v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
See Division No. 14, Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1160 , 8 L.Ed.2d 287 (1962).” This applies with even greater force here, since the Mediation Board has already made an “ultimate determination” by certifying ALPA as the bargaining agent for Eastern’s flight engineers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v. Helen Shop, Inc.
(2×)
See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696, 703 , 93 A.L.R. 2d 1340 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.
See Division No. 14, Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1160 , 8 L.Ed.2d 287 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Ruby v. American Airlines
See division No. 14, Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1160 , 8 L.Ed.2d 287 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Railway Labor Executives Association v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company
See also Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1160 , 8 L.Ed.2d 287 (1962) (district courts lack jurisdiction to resolve representation dispute) 4 The NS/W & LE transfer took place on May 17.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Railway Labor Executives Ass'n v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.
See also Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1160 , 8 L.Ed.2d 287 (1962) (district courts lack jurisdiction to resolve representation dispute). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pisacane v. Italia Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione
(2×)
See also, generally, Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696, 701 (2 Cir. 1962) cert. den. 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962) and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phelps v. Bookwalter
(2×)
See also Hausman v. Buckley (2nd Cir., 1962) 299 F.2d 696 , 704, cert. den. 369 U.S. 885 , 82 S.Ct. 1157 , 8 L.Ed.2d 286 , in which it was held that the only proper function of the federal court “is to ascertain what the [state] law is, and not to speculate about what it will be”.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wisconsin Central Railroad Co.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 764.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 21, 1962.
Joseph M. Jones, Robert T. Molloy and Kenneth W. Meroney for petitioner., Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Philip R. Miller and Kenneth E. Levin for the United States.
Cited by 57 opinions | Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (1)
Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.