Chodorski v. United States, 353 U.S. 950 (1957). · Go Syfert
Chodorski v. United States, 353 U.S. 950 (1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Donnelly v. National Railroad Passenger (ca8, 1994-02-17) · Strongest negative: United States v. Golden West Construction Co. (utd, 1961-02-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Golden West Construction Co.
D. Utah · 1961 · signal: but see · confidence high
Ed. 398 , wherein it was said that State laws are not controlling in determining what are incidents of Federal rights; but see Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 10 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 201 , certiorari denied 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 , with respect to interest.
cited Cited "but see" Safeway Stores, Inc., a Corporation v. Sadie A. Preston
D.C. Cir. · 1959 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Pomeroy, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 272 , 279, 280, 239 F.2d 435, 442, 443 , certiorari denied, 1957, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 .
discussed Cited "see" Donnelly v. National Railroad Passenger
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennsylvania R.R. v. Pomeroy, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 272 , 239 F.2d 435 , 439-40 & n. 3 (1956) (Pomeroy) (holding res ipsa loquitur did not apply where no proof that railroad had exclusive control over opening of car doors), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 (1957); Axelson, 367 N.W.2d at 160 (holding res ipsa loquitur did not apply where no proof that tenant had exclusive control over cigarette that caused fire).
discussed Cited "see" Donnelly v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennsylvania R.R. v. Pomeroy, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 272 , 239 F.2d 435 , 439-40 & n. 3 (1956) (Pomeroy ) (holding res ipsa loquitur did not apply where no proof that railroad had exclusive control over opening of car doors), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 (1957); Axelson, 367 N.W.2d at 160 (holding res ipsa loquitur did not apply where no proof that tenant had exclusive control over cigarette that caused fire). 14 Moreover, even assuming sufficient facts to warrant an inference of negligence on the part of defendant, plaintiff failed to show that such negligence proxim…
discussed Cited "see" Layne-Minnesota P. R., Inc. v. The Singer Company and Layne-Atlantic Company v. Layne-Minnesota Company and United Pacific Insurance Company
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wunderlich Contracting Company v. United States, 240 F.2d 201 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 (1957); McCree & Company v. State, 253 Minn. 295 , 91 N.W.2d 713 (1958).
discussed Cited "see" Levy v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.
D.C. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pomeroy v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 128 , 223 F.2d 693 , certiorari denied 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 859 ; Safeway Stores v. West, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 99 , 180 F.2d 25 , certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 952 , 70 S.Ct. 840 , 94 L.Ed. 1365 . 2 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Richard Secor Corliss, United States of America v. Fred August Heise, United States of America v. Walter Herold
2d Cir. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Chodorski, 7 Cir., 1956, 240 F.2d 590, 592-593 , certiorari denied 1957, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 858 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robert J. Crowley v. Peter P. Pierce, Jr., as State Director of Selective Service
5th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Chodorski, 7 Cir., 1956, 240 F.2d 590, 591 , cert. denied, 353 U.S. 950 , 77 S.Ct. 861 , 1 L.Ed.2d 858 , (“The decision of the local board * * * has been set aside and held for naught * * *.”) ; United States v. Stepler, 3 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 310 (A classification by an Appeal Board is not, therefore, merely an affirmance of the action of an inferior agency but is the independent act of such board.) ; United States v. Longworth, S.D.Ohio, 1967, 269 F.Supp. 971, 976 (“[An Appeal Board] classification is one of first instance, not a mere affirmance or reversal…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chodorski
v.
United States
No. 858.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 6, 1957.
353 U.S. 950
Hayden C. Covington for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. May-sack for the United States.
Published

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.