green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
US Sprint Communications Co. v. Boran
See United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , *508 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Koehring Co. v. Hyde Construction Co., 324 F.2d 295, 297-98 (5th Cir.1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
Co., 5 Cir. 1963, 324 F.2d 295 ; accord, United States v. Berkowitz, 3 Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 358 , 361, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 . 17 .
cited
Cited "see"
Capitol Cabinet Corp. v. Interior Dynamics, Ltd.
See United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. den. 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Troyer v. Karcagi, 488 F.Supp. 1200, 1206 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ginsey Industries, Inc. v. I. T. K. Plastics, Inc.
See United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 , 361 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Shong Ching Lau v. Change, 415 F.Supp. 627, 632 (E.D.Pa. 1976). 1 In considering a motion to transfer, a court must first determine that the transferee district is a district where the action “might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a); Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 , 80 S.Ct. 1084 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellis v. Great Southwestern Corporation
Accord, United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 , 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Smith v. Peters, 482 F.2d 799, 802-03 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1587 , 39 L.Ed.2d 886 (1974). 8 Dubin did not cite our previous decision in Koehring, but criticized Berkowitz for relying on section 1404(a) since that section "operates when there are two (or more) forums where a suit could be brought and where it could proceed." 380 F.2d at 816 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellis v. Great Southwestern Corp.
Accord, United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Smith v. Peters, 482 F.2d 799, 802-03 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1587 , 39 L.Ed.2d 886 (1974). 8 Dubin did not cite our previous decision in Koehring, but criticized Berkowitz for relying on section 1404(a) since that section “operates when there are two (or more) forums where a suit could be brought and where it could proceed.” 380 F.2d at 816 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see"
X-Rail Systems, Inc. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
See, U. S. v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3 Cir. 1963), cert. den., 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Adams v. Governor's Committee on Post Secondary Education
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) and United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964). .
cited
Cited "see"
Adams v. GOVERNOR'S COM. ON POST, ETC.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) and United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Froelich v. Petrelli
But see Athletes Foot of Delaware v. Ralph Libonati Co., 445 F.Supp. 35 , 49 n.47 (D.Del.1977). 7 . “[T]he application of § 1404(a) in the federal courts has produced formidable dicta to the effect that the second action is barred by the statute of limitations where a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is denied in a suit pending elsewhere on the same claim.” Hugo Stinnes Steel and Metals Co. v. S. S. Elbe Oldendorff, 372 F.Supp. 705, 707 (S.D.Ga.1974); see United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 , 360 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Internati…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mulcahy v. Guertler
See United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Koehring Company v. Hyde Construction Company, 324 F.2d 295 (5 Cir. 1963); Alabama Great Southern R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Celanese Corp. v. Federal Energy Administration
See United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964) (transfer permissible under § 1404(a) even though court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant); Caldwell Mfg.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hga Cinema Trust, Burton W. Kanter, Trustee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See also Lewis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 328 F.2d 634, 635 (7th Cir.) (“Regardless of a taxpayer’s motives, where a paper transaction lacks substance and no genuine indebtedness is created ... no interest can be said to have been paid for the use or forbearance of money actually loaned and no interest expense deduction may flow therefrom.”), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 43 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wesley v. H & D Wireless Ltd. Partnership
See, e.g., United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Smith v. Peters, 482 F.2d 799, 802-03 (6th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1587 , 39 L.Ed. 2d 886 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CAT Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
See, Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962); see also, United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 (1964). 3) Litigation in Kansas Venue is proper in Kansas because as an alien Pratt & Whitney may be sued in any district which its codefendants Cessna and Cifa, as citizens, may be sued.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bayles v. K-Mart Corp.
See, e.g., United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Torres v. Torres, 603 F.Supp. 440 (E.D.N.Y.1985); Stevens Yachts of Annapolis, Inc. v. American Yacht Charters, Inc., 571 F.Supp. 467 (E.D.Pa.1983); LaBrier v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald F. Hoelscher
“Courtroom identification is not necessary when the evidence is sufficient to permit the inference that the defendant on trial is the person who [committed the acts charged].” United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir.1983); see also Delegal v. United States, 329 F.2d 494 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 44 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfred Gerome Nelson and Vida Nelson v. International Paint Company
See, e.g., United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 821 , 85 S.Ct. 42 , 13 L.Ed.2d 32 (1964); Froelich v. Petrelli, 472 F.Supp. 756, 759-60 (D.Haw.1979); contra Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469, 473-74 (6th Cir.1980).
Berkowitz
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 125.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1964.
I. Arnold Ross and Daniel Wilkes for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attornéy General Oberdorfer, Joseph Kovner and Robert A. Bernstein for the United States.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.