green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Pinkerton's, Inc.
But see NLRB v. Signal Manufacturing Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 985 , 86 S.Ct. 562 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966) (insufficient evidence of hostility to support refusal to bargain).
cited
Cited "but see"
General Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
But cf. NLRB v. Signal Manufacturing Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 985 , 86 S.Ct. 562 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966) (similar claim of animosity rejected).
discussed
Cited "see"
Weeks Construction, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Authority, United States of America, and Department of Housing and Urban Development
(2×)
See Poitra v. Demarrias, 502 F.2d 23 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 934 , 95 S.Ct. 1664 , 44 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975) (distinguishing Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Hot Oil Service, Inc. v. Halt, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.1966) and Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966), which found diversity jurisdiction precluded in suits by a non-Indian against an Indian).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, a Nebraska Corporation, and Ranier Construction Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation
(2×)
See Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d at 481 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. International Heritage, Inc.
See Villeneuve v. Advanced Business Concepts Corp., 730 F.2d 1403, 1404 (11th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Herr, 338 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.1964), cert. denied 382 U.S. 999 , 86 S.Ct. 563 , 15 L.Ed.2d 487 (where investors were offered distributorhip agreements under which distributor would give money to the defendant corporation in exchange for merchandise which salesmen would sell on behalf of distributors, court held agreements were investment contracts in light of the fact that it was not the defendant’s or the distributor’s intention to resell merchandise thereby leading the distrib…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(2×)
The dismissal should have been based upon comity, rather than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Wellman, 815 F.2d at 578 ; see also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir.1965) (even though the litigation “falls within the letter of the diversity statute, we believe that the basic principle of diversity jurisdiction requires reference of the suit to the Navajo Tribal Courts”), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes Of The Colville Reservation
(2×)
The dismissal should have been based upon comity, rather than lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Wellman, 815 F.2d at 578 ; see also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir.1965) (even though the litigation "falls within the letter of the diversity statute, we believe that the basic principle of diversity jurisdiction requires reference of the suit to the Navajo Tribal Courts"), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966). 56 Indeed, the existence of diversity jurisdiction does not preclude a federal court from deferring to tribal proceedings because of comity. 57…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe
(2×)
See also Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 531 , 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Babbitt Ford, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. The Navajo Indian Tribe, Through Its Chairman, Peterson Zah, and Tom and Lorraine Sellers, Defendants-Cross-Appellants. Gurley Motor Company, a New Mexico Corporation v. Peterson Zah, Individually and in His Capacity as Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council
(2×)
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 556 , 23 S.Ct. 216, 217 , 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) 4 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 , 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1086 , 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56, 72 , 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1675, 1684 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1972) (Congress has plenary authority to limit, modify, or eliminate the powers of local self-government which tribes otherwise possess, but Congress' intent to do so must be clearly expressed) 5 Trans-Canada Enterprises, Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474, 476-77 (9th Cir.1980) 6 United States v. Wheel…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates, Inc. v. United States
See also England v. United States, 7 Cir. 1965, 345 F.2d 414 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 986 , 86 S.Ct. 537 , 15 L.Ed.2d 475 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mobil Oil Co.
v.
Local 7-644, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
v.
Local 7-644, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
No. 800.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1966.
William H. Armstrong and Robert L. Broderick for petitioner., Harold Gruenberg for respondent.
Cited by 63 opinions | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.