green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.0 score
“certainly, a defendant offering a sum in settlement of a suit asking, among other things, for an injunction against certain conduct, would not understand that a similar demand could be asserted the day after settlement.”
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
At & T Communications of Virginia, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc.
certainly, a defendant offering a sum in settlement of a suit asking, among other things, for an injunction against certain conduct, would not understand that a similar demand could be asserted the day after settlement.
cited
Cited "see"
Millgard Corp. v. White Oak Corp.
See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801, 802-04 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Bernstein v. Antar
See Fong v. United States, 300 F.2d 400, 413 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 938, 82 S.Ct. 1584 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962); see also 10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cervone
See United States v. McCue, 301 F.2d 452, 455 (2d Cir.) (because interviewee was "well aware of the nature and purpose of the examination," the question of "the citizen who replies to the policeman with an 'exculpatory "no" ' can be left until it arises"), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1586 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 (1962). 69 As to Cummings, his remarks were not truly exculpatory.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cervone
See United States v. McCue, 301 F.2d 452, 455 (2d Cir.) (because interviewee was “well aware of the nature and purpose of the examination,” the question of “the citizen who replies to the policeman with an ‘exculpatory “no” ’ can be left until it arises”), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1586 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Callie v. Near
See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801, 803 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Callie v. Near
See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801, 803 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bell v. Inland Mutual Insurance
(2×)
See Fong v. United States, 300 F.2d 400, 413 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 938 , 82 S.Ct. 1584 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962); see also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wencke, 577 F.2d 619, 623 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 964 , 99 S.Ct. 451 , 58 L.Ed.2d 422 (1978); Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832 , 95 S.Ct. 55 , 42 L.Ed.2d 57 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See generally City of Dayton v. Allred, 68 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1934), Atkinson v. City of Dallas, 353 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Pereira
See generally, United States v. McCue, 301 F.2d 452 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1586 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 (1962), and cases cited therein. 9 .
cited
Cited "see"
Wallace Good v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company
See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801 (3 Cir.) cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1585 , 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. M. Raymond Adler
See, United States v. McCue, 301 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1586 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
City of Dallas v. Brown
See Atkinson v. City of Dallas, 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1587 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 , rehearing denied 371 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 18 , 9 L.Ed.2d 92 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DeCantis v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc.
See, e. g., Woodard v. General Motors Corp., 298 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 887 , 82 S.Ct. 1161 , 8 L.Ed.2d 288 , rehearing denied, 370 U.S. 965 , 82 S.Ct. 1584 , 8 L.Ed.2d 834 (1962); Garvin v. American Motor Sales Corp., 318 F.2d 518 (3d Cir. 1963).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jaben
See also United States v. McCue, 2 Cir. 1962, 301 F.2d 452, 454 , cert. denied 370 U.S. 939 , 82 S.Ct. 1586 , 8 L.Ed.2d 808 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jack Daniel Distillery, Lem Motlow, Prop., Inc.
v.
Hoffman Distilling Co.
v.
Hoffman Distilling Co.
No. 950.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 25, 1962.
John J. Hooker, Joe - E. Daniels and Chauncey P. Carter for petitioner. Charles B. Cannon, John K. Skaggs, Jr. and James E. Fahey for respondents.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. - Certiorari denied.