Stamler Et Al. v. Willis Et Al., 393 U.S. 407 (1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Stamler Et Al. v. Willis Et Al., 393 U.S. 407 (1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company
E.D. La. · 2020 · confidence medium
This right to removal “is absolute for conduct performed under color of federal office, and [the U.S. Supreme Court] has insisted that the policy favoring removal ‘should not be frustrated by a narrow, grudging interpretation of § 1442(a)(1).’” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981) (citing Willingham, 393 U.S. at 407).
cited Cited "see" MTM, Inc. v. Baxley
SCOTUS · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stamler v. Willis, 393 U. S. 407 (1969); Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U. S. 427, 431 (1970).
cited Cited "see" Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.
SCOTUS · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stamler v. Willis, 393 U. S. 407 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rosa v. Gil
D.P.R. · 1969 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Stamler v. Willis, 371 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1966), on remand, 278 F.Supp. 734 (N.D.Ill.1968) (three-judge court), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 217 , 89 S.Ct. 395 , 21 L.Ed.2d 356 (1968), dismissal vacated and case remanded, 393 U.S. 407 , 89 S.Ct. 677 , 21 L.Ed.2d 627 (1968), on remand, 415 F.2d 1365 (7th Cir. 1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeremiah Stamler and Yolanda F. Hall
v.
Edwin E. Willis
478.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 27, 1969.
393 U.S. 407
Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Thomas P. Sullivan, and Arthur Kinoy for appellants in No. 478 on the petition for rehearing and motion to amend.
Marshall, Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The petition for a rehearing is denied. The motion to amend the judgment entered on November 25, 1968, dismissing the appeals is granted. The judgment dismissing the appeals is vacated and a new judgment will issue providing that the judgment below be vacated and the cases be remanded to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which timely appeals may be taken to the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.