green
Positive treatment
published
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942
1984
2026
Cited for
62 S. Ct. at 99 cited at this page1 citing case
- Maryland Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Montgomery Cnty., 64 A.3d 478 (Md. 2013).publishedIn that case, the statute stated, “every Federal land bank ... shall be exempt from Federal, State, municipal, and local taxation.” Id. at 99, 62 S.Ct. at 3 (alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
86 L. Ed. at 70 under certain circumstances “the term ‘including’ is not one of all- embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle1 citing case
- Am. Eyecare v. Dep't of Human Servs., 770 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 2009).published(under certain circumstances “the term ‘including’ is not one of all- embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle)
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”
- Marmon Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 726 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2013).published“the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”
- Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005).published“the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 122 (Fed. Cl. 2004).published“the term ‘including’ is not one of all embracing definition, but connotes simply and illustrative application of the general principle”
- Hawaiian Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Wong., 305 P.3d 452 (Haw. 2013).published“the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”
- United States v. Tori K. Collins, 854 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2017).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- Bd. of Trade v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 677 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir. 1982).published“the term 'including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”
- Ballanger v. Johanns, 495 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2007).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principal.”
- Ralph Janvey v. Peter Romero, 883 F.3d 406 (4th Cir. 2018).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- Joy P. Adams Roger D. Wensil v. Elizabeth H. Dole, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Energy, Intervenor, 927 F.2d 771 (4th Cir. 1991).published“‘including’ is not [a term] of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”
- Standridge v. Union Pac. R.R., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
Show 6 more citing cases
- Robert B. Reich, Etc. v. Cambridgeport Air Sys., Inc., 26 F.3d 1187 (1st Cir. 1994).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- In Re Merritt Yochum & Rose Marie Yochum, Debtors. United States of Am. v. Merritt Yochum & Rose Marie Yochum, 89 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1996).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but simply connotes an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005).published“We recently had occasion under other circumstances to point out that the term ‘including’ is not one of all embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- United States v. Joel Andrew Wyatt, AKA \Lupine\" Rebecca Kay Smith", 408 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2005).published“the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- Arizona State Bd. for Charter Schs. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 464 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2006).published“[T]he term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
- In Re Union Pac. R.R. Emp. Practices Litig. Brandi Standridge, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated Kenya Phillips, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated, Jackie Fitzgerald, an Oregon Resident, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated Samantha Brand, a Washington Resident, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., the Bd. of Trs. of Union Pac. Employees Health Serv., Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists U.S. Women's Chamber of Com., Amici on Behalf of Equal Emp. Advisory Council Chamber of Com. of the United States, Amici on Behalf of Olympia J. Snowe Harry Reid Patty Murray Barbara Milkulski Maria Cantwell, Senators Nita M. Lowey Louise M. Slaughter Diana Degette Chris Shays Betty McCollum Henry A. Waxman Sherrod Brown Donna M. Christensen Joseph Crowley Sam Farr Raul M. Grijalva Jane Harman Sheila Jackson Lee Eddie Bernice Johnson Dennis J. Kucinich Carolyn Maloney James P. McGovern Jerrold Nadler Jan Schakowsky Allyson Y. Schwartz Diane E. Watson Anthony D. Weiner Albert R. Wynn Rush D. Holt Jim Moran, Representatives, Amici on Behalf Of, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007).published“[T]he term `including' is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.”
Other citing cases
- First Nat. Bk. of Maywood v. Jones, 269 N.E.2d 494 (Ill. 1971).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Automatic Devices Corp.
v.
Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.
v.
Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.
6.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 10, 1941.
Published opinion
314 U.S. 94
1941 U.S. LEXIS 1288
Mr. Drury W. Cooper, with whom Messrs. Henry M. Huxley and Thomas J. Byrne were on the brief, for petitioner., Messrs. Russell Wiles and Bernard A. Schroeder, with whom Mr. George A. Chritton was on the brief, for respondent.
Douglas.
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (3) · Eighth Circuit (3) · Ninth Circuit (3) · Eleventh Circuit (2) · Seventh Circuit (2) · First Circuit (1) · Third Circuit (1)
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F. 2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is
Affirmed.