green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
14.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1979 ·
…the dominant congressional purpose in enacting (section 20a) was to protect investors in the securities of railroads . . . .
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1979 ·
…the dominant congressional purpose in enacting was to protect investors in the securities of railroads . . . .
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Association of American Railroads v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, McLean Trucking Company, Ryder System, Inc., and Smith's Transfer Corporation v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Greyhound Corporation and Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. And Arkansas Best Corporation v. The United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Merchants, Inc., Intervenor. Tco Industries, Inc., and Continental Trailways, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Overnite Transportation Company v. The United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. v. The United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission
(3×)
the dominant congressional purpose in enacting (section 20a) was to protect investors in the securities of railroads . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Association of American Railroads v. United States
(3×)
the dominant congressional purpose in enacting was to protect investors in the securities of railroads . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mazzei v. The Money Store
(2×)
May 28, 2004) (“The denial to defendant of a fair opportunity to answer and pursue plaintiff’s claims on the merits is an injustice that is ‘sufficiently gross to demand a departure’ from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata.” (quoting Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 46 )); Petersville Sleigh Ltd. v. Schmidt, 124 F.R.D. 67 , 71–72 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (denying a motion for fraud on the court and differentiating a case in which an attorney falsely told the court, after a settlement had been negotiated, that he would pay a lien—a fraud undiscoverable within the bounds of the litigation…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Taylor
“In order to dispel [this] presumption * * *, a criminal defendant must present ‘clear evidence to the contrary.’” Id. quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1486 , 134 Holmes County, Case No. 12CA18 21 L.Ed.2d 687, 698 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
J.H. Rutter Rex Mfg. Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(2×)
See Shaw-Walker Company v. Commissioner, 390 F.2d 205, 211, 217-33 (6th Cir.1968), judgment vacated by 393 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 707 , 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969), on remand, 412 F.2d 858 (6th Cir.1969). 11 .
examined
Cited "see"
Doria Mining And Engineering Corporation v. Rogers Morton
(3×)
See Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.Supp. 374, 382-84 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (three-judge court) (court reached the merits of complaint seeking to set aside an administrative decision for fraud, based on evidence not contained in the administrative record), Aff'd, 393 U.S. 479 , 89 S.Ct. 707 , 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969) (per curiam); Cf. United States v. Shotwell Mfg.
examined
Cited "see"
Doria Mining & Engineering Corp. v. Morton
(3×)
See Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.Supp. 374, 382-84 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (three-judge court) (court reached the merits of complaint seeking to set aside an administrative decision for fraud, based on evidence not contained in the administrative record), aff’d, 393 U.S. 479 , 89 S.Ct. 707 , 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Shotwell Mfg.
examined
Cited "see"
Rea Express, Inc. v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad
(3×)
See Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.Supp. 374, 387 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U.S. 479 , 89 S.Ct. 707 , 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969); I.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Lee House
Second, even assuming for the purposes of discussion that the omission was deliberate or made with reckless disregard for the truth, the omitted information was certainly not necessary to the finding of probable cause. 9 The apartment warrant affidavit, when read in a realistic and commonsense manner, e. g., United States v. Maestas, 546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), and with a preference toward the warrant process, e. g., United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), established the requisite “ ‘probability of criminal activity and secreting of e…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
INTERSTATE INVESTORS, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
755.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 27, 1969.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
Frederick W. P. Lorenzen and William R. Burt for appellant.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, and Jerome Nelson for the United States et al., and Thomas F. Daly, John W. Castles III, and Warren A. Goff for Transcontinental Bus System, Inc., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.