green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1967 ·
…whether the judgment in either was vitiated by the respective participation
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Argonaut Insurance v. Halvanon Insurance
(2×)
See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814, 815 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question and United States intervened).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellants. Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. Rose Mofford, Individually and as Governor of the State of Arizona Robert Corbin, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellees
(2×)
See Wallach v. Lieberman, 366 F.2d 254 , 258 n. 9 (2d Cir.1966) (noting that intervention under section 2403(b) is appropriate at any stage of the proceedings) (citing Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Yniguez v. Arizona
See Wallach v. Lieberman, 366 F.2d 254 , 258 n. 9 (2d Cir.1966) (noting that intervention under section 2403(b) is appropriate at any stage of the proceedings) (citing Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 1 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Krigel v. Belton (In re Belton)
(2×)
See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 68 B.R. 105, 107, n. 3 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1986) ("Any question of whether the assignment of such power to the bankruptcy court converts it into an Article III court under the rule of Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961), can be obviated in this action by the district court’s treating the decision of the bankruptcy court as recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law and making its own decision on the basis thereof.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wallach v. Lieberman
(2×)
See, e.g., Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 368 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question); id. at 885 , 82 S.Ct. 140 (United States intervened); Supreme Court Rule 33, subd. 2(b) 10 The provisions of this chapter shall apply to employers and employees engaged in intrastate, and also interstate or foreign commerce, for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the congress of the United States, only to the extent that their mutual connection with intrastate work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguishable from int…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wallach v. Lieberman
See, e. g., Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 308 U.S. 814 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961) (Supreme Court certified question); id. at 885, 82 S.Ct. 140 (United States intervened) ; Supreme Court Rule 33, subd. 2(b). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Glidden Company, Etc.
v.
Olga Zdanok
v.
Olga Zdanok
242.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1961.
368 U.S. 814
1961 U.S. LEXIS 2062
Chester Bordean for petitioner. Morris Shapiro and Harry Katz for respondents., Carl M. Could for California Manufacturers Association; Daniel S. Ring for National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Inc.; Ashley Sellers and Jesse E. Baskette for National Association of Margarine Manufacturers; Clarence D. Laylin and John Eckler for Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Henry E. Seyfarth for Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; Jerome Ackerman for the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc.; Charles H. Tuttle for American Spice Trade Association; John E. Branch for the Georgia State Chamber of Commerce; Frank C. Heath for the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio; and William B. Barton for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, as amici curiae., Briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by Francis M. Shea and Richard T. Conway for the Judges of the United States Court of Claims, and by Edward C. First, Jr. and Gilbert Nurick for the Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce.
Cited by 37 opinions | Published
Motions of California Manufacturers Association; National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Inc.; National Association of Margarine Manufacturers; Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc.; American Spice Trade Association; Georgia State Chamber of Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio; and Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to question (d) presented by the petition, which reads as follows:
“(d) Does participation by a Court of Claims judge vitiate the judgment of the Court of Appeals?”
In all other respects the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403, the Court hereby certifies to the Attorney General that there is drawn in question in this case the constitutionality of the Act of July 28, 1953, 67 Stat. 226 (28 U. S. C. § 171).
[*815] Briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by Francis M. Shea and Richard T. Conway for the Judges of the United States Court of Claims, and by Edward C. First, Jr. and Gilbert Nurick for the Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce.