green
Positive treatment
1.3 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc.
While this sanction would undoubtedly punish the client for the errors of its counsel, countless federal courts have held that “the fact that the client is affected by the derelicts of counsel is not a justification for excusing counsel’s conduct .... ” See, e.g., Salgado by Salgado v. General Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir.1998) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 *314 U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); Damiani v. Rhode Island Hosp., 704 F.2d 12, 16-17 (1st Cir.1983) (citing same).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Verra
See United States v. Polakoff, 121 F. 2d 333 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 626 , 62 S.Ct. 107 , 86 L.Ed. 503 (1941). 7 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harvey Coal Corp.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 355.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 13, 1941.
Mr. 3. Nelson Anderson for petitioner. Assistant Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Miss Helen B. Carloss and Mr. William L. Cary for the United States.
Application, Consideration, Took.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration and decision of this application.