green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. Goldman
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298, 303 (2d Cir.1956) (noting probable in personam jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provide for service on individual defendant's agent), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957); Merz v. Mehner, 57 Wash. 324, 326-27 , 106 P. 1118 (1910) (trustee empowered to sue on behalf of trust can be sued as representative of the trust); Ashcraft v. Powers, 22 Wash. 440, 443 , 61 P. 161 (1900) (attorney-at-law cannot accept service without special authority from his client set forth in a power of attorney); Warner …
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. Goldman
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298, 303 (2d Cir.1956) (noting probable in personam jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provide for service on individual defendant’s agent), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 (1957); Merz v. Mehner, 57 Wash. 324, 326-27 , 106 P. 1118 (1910) (trustee empowered to sue on behalf of trust can be sued as representative of the trust); Ashcraft v. Powers, 22 Wash. 440, 443 , 61 P. 161 (1900) (attorney-at-law cannot accept service without special authority from his client set forth in a power of attorney); Warner Bros.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ingredient Technology Corporation, Formerly Known as Sucrest Corporation, and Robert M. Rapaport
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298, 306 (2d Cir.1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957).
cited
Cited "see"
AMP, INC. v. United States
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298 , 304-305 (2nd Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957), and the cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bosurgi
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298, 303 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957) ; United States v. Davis, 38 F.R.D. 424 (N.D.N.Y.1965) ; 2 J.
cited
Cited "see"
Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, supra; see Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 5 Cir., 236 F.2d *698 785, 791, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. First National City Bank
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298 (2d Cir., 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. First National City Bank
See United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298 (2d Cir., 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 357 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 (1957). 8 The crucial question here is whether appellant holds property or rights to property of the taxpayer Omar subject to the jurisdiction of the district court. 5 The nature of Omar's right against Citibank arising out of a deposit made in Citibank's Montevideo branch bank is to be determined by state law for the tax lien statute 'creates no property rights but merely attaches consequences, federally defined, to rights created under state law.' United States v. Bess, 35…
cited
Cited "see"
Deep South Oil Company of Texas v. Federal Power Commission
See Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 785 , certiorari denied 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 , for a discussion of Order No. 174-A. .
cited
Cited "see"
Continental Oil Co. v. Federal Power Commission
See Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 785 , certiorari denied 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 , for a discussion of Order No. 174-A. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Jackson
Where there is an implication that an attorney is authorized to receive process on behalf of the client "it must be implied from all the circumstances . . . which indicate the extent of the authority the client intended to confer." United States v. Bosurgi, 343 F. Supp. 815, 818 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); see also United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298 , 303 (2nd Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 (1957).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU v. Jackson
Where there is an implication that an attorney is authorized to receive process on behalf of the client "it must be implied from all the circumstances . . . which indicate the extent of the authority the client intended to confer." United States v. Bosurgi, 343 F. Supp. 815, 818 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); see also United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298 , 303 (2nd Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 968 (1957). [12] The record contains no contract between Lord, Bissell & Brook and Lloyd's as to the specific or express authority of Lord, Bissell & Brook to accept notice of arbitration on behalf of Lloyd…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ecee, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
See, e. g., Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 785, 791-93 , cert. denied, 1957, 352 U.S. 968 , 77 S.Ct. 356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 322 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kus
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 553.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 1957.
Peter Fitzpatrick and Gerald M. Chapman for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub and Samuel D. Slade for the United States.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.