Erie Forge Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 930 (1952). · Go Syfert
Erie Forge Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 930 (1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
103 citation events across 33 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company United Artists Theatres, Inc. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. Paramount Pictures Corporation Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Avco Embassy Pictures Corp. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. United Artists Corporation Buena Vista Distributing Co., Inc., Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company United Artists Theatres, Inc. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. United Artists Corporation, Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company American Multi-Cinema, Inc. United Artists Corporation (ca9, 1988-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company United Artists Theatres, Inc. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. Paramount Pictures Corporation Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Avco Embassy Pictures Corp. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. United Artists Corporation Buena Vista Distributing Co., Inc., Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company United Artists Theatres, Inc. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. United Artists Corporation, Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. Daniel E. Harkins, Individually and Dba Tower Plaza Cinema I and II v. General Cinema Corporation, and the Harry Nace Company American Multi-Cinema, Inc. United Artists Corporation
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Since consistently bad business judgment is not to be expected from able and experienced corporate decisionmakers, only the conspiratorial inference is plausible. 52 Southway Theatres, Inc. v. Georgia Theatre Co., 672 F.2d 485, 501 (5th Cir.1982) (appendix--district court analysis); see Milgram v. Loew's, Inc., 192 F.2d 579, 583 (3d Cir.1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 929 , 72 S.Ct. 762 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952). 53 Harkins attempts to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the quality of its bids by comparing the terms it offered with those of the licensed split member for forty top-grossing film…
discussed Cited "see" Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp.
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Southway Theatres, Inc. v. Georgia Theatre Co., 672 F.2d 485, 501 (5th Cir.1982) (appendix — district court analysis); see Milgram v. Loew’s, Inc., 192 F.2d 579, 583 (3d Cir.1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 929 , 72 S.Ct. 762 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952).
discussed Cited "see" Security Industrial Insurance Company v. United States of America (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Erie Forge Co., 191 F.2d 627, 631 (3d Cir.1951) [(defective statutory notice might effect validity of administrative remedies, but it is “immaterial in an action by the United States, since such a suit is brought ‘either upon the assessment, or upon the duty imposed by the statute alone,’ ” quoting Jenkins v. Smith)], cert. denied, 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 759 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952); Jenkins v. Smith, 99 F.2d 827, 828 (2d Cir.1938) [(same)]; Sherwood v. United States, 246 F.Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y.1965) [(same in dicta)]; see also Brafman v. United States, 384 F.2d 863 ,…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lawrence W. Berman, Mariln Berman, and Forex Corporation (2×)
6th Cir. · 1987 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, United States v. Erie Forge Co., 191 F.2d 627 (3d Cir.1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 759 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952); Sherwood v. United States, 246 F.Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y.1965).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hunter Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (2×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Erie Forge Co., 191 F.2d 627, 631 (3d Cir.1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 759 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Murphy (2×)
S.C. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richards v. United States, 193 F. (2d) 554 (10th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 930 , 72 S. Ct. 764 , 96 L.
discussed Cited "see" Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co. v. American Tobacco Co.
3rd Cir. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Milgram v. Loew’s Inc., 192 F.2d 579, 585 (3 Cir. 1951), cert. denied 343 U.S. 929 , 72 S.Ct. 762 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952). . 66 F.Supp. 323 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1946), modified 334 U.S. 131 , 68 S.Ct. 915 , 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948), on remand 85 F.Supp. 881 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1949). .
discussed Cited "see" Royster Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Milwaukee Towne Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 7 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 561, 571 , certiorari denied, 1952, 342 U.S. 909 , 72 S.Ct. 762 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 ; Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 7 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 520, 524 , certiorari denied 1947, 332 U.S. 817 , 68 S.Ct. 158 , 92 L.Ed. 394 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. The Shotwell Manufacturing Company, United States of America v. Byron A. Cain, United States of America v. Frank J. Huebner, United States of America v. Harold E. Sullivan
7th Cir. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 215, 217 , certiorari denied 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 760 , 96 L.Ed. 1340 . 76 In its memorandum decision denying defendants' motion, the district court found that defendants had not sustained the burden of proving that a sufficient voluntary disclosure within the purview of the announced policy had been made by them.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co.
7th Cir. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See White, v. United States, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 215, 217 , certiorari denied 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 760 , 96 L.Ed. 1340 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Joseph W. Di Silvestro v. United States
2d Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also related claims in Di Silvestro v. Gray, 194 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 765 , 96 L.Ed. 1340 , rehearing denied, 343 U.S. 952 , 72 S.Ct. 1043 , 96 L.Ed. 1353 (1952); Di Silvestro v. United States Veterans Administration, 81 F.Supp. 844 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 173 F.2d 933 (2d Cir.), motion to vacate order dismissing complaint denied, 9 F.R.D. 435 (E.D.N.Y.1949), amended complaint dismissed, 10 F.R.D. 20 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 181 F.2d 502 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 989 , 70 S.Ct. 1014 , 94 L.Ed. 1390 (1950).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Associates Commercial Corporation, Cross-Appellant (2×)
7th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Erie Forge Co., 191 F.2d 627 (3d Cir.1951), certiorari denied, 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 759 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 ; Sherwood v. United States, 246 F.Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y.1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Blanche H. Lober v. Willis Moore
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Di Silvestro v. Gray, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 184 , 194 F.2d 355 , cert. denied 343 U.S. 930 , 72 S.Ct. 765 , 96 L.Ed. 1340 (1952). 26 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Delaware Valley Marine Supply Company v. American Tobacco Company
3rd Cir. · 1961 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Brown v. Western Massachusetts Theatres, Inc., 288 F.2d 302, 304-305 (1 Cir., 1961) 23 See Milgram v. Loew's Inc., 192 F.2d 579, 585 (3 Cir. 1951), cert. denied 343 U.S. 929 , 72 S.Ct. 762 , 96 L.Ed. 1339 (1952) 24 66 F.Supp. 323 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1946), modified 334 U.S. 131 , 68 S.Ct. 915 , 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948), on remand 85 F. Supp. 881 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1949) 25 The Reynolds' contact with the plaintiff through its local representative, Comey, was not "automatic" in nature.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Erie Forge Co.
v.
United States
No. 601.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 1952.
343 U.S. 930
Leo Brady and W. Pitt Gifford for petitioner. Solicitor General Perlman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Slack, Lee A. Jackson and Irving I. Axelrad for the United States.
Are, Douglas, Granted, Should.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Jackson are of the opinion certiorari should be granted.