green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Adams v. Clinton
(2×)
See Albaugh v. Tawes, 379 U.S. 27 , 85 S.Ct. 194 , 13 L.Ed.2d 173 (1964) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Howard v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws
See Albaugh v. Tawes, 233 F.Supp. 576 (D.Md.), aff'd., 379 U.S. 27 , 85 S.Ct. 194 , 13 L.Ed.2d 173 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Menzies
See, e.g., In re Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project IB, 389 P.2d 538, 552 (upheld actions of redevelopment agency though one of its members ineligible because not resident of proper city), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 28 , 85 S.Ct. 190 , 13 L.Ed.2d 173 (1964); People v. Montoya, 44 Colo. App. 234 , 616 P.2d 156, 162 (1980) (upheld action of special prosecutor who was ineligible because member of attorney general’s office); Olathe Hospital Found., Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc., 217 Kan. 546 , 539 P.2d 1, 12 (1975) (upheld action of appeals panel though some of panel members' terms had expired); Marshall…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS & STATION EMPLOYEES
v.
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
v.
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
31.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 1965.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
James L. Highsaw, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Edward J. Hickey, Jr.
Stuart Bernstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were H. Templeton Brown and Robert L. Stern.
Solicitor General Cox, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Douglas and Alan S. Rosenthal.
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that the questions which brought this case here should be decided, dissents from the dismissal of the writ.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.