green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Birbeck v. Southern New England Production Credit Ass'n
See McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corporation, 240 F.Supp. 791 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 346 F.2d 424 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Bache & Co. v. Roland
See McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424, 427 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,365 Arthur Yale Kavit v. A. L. Stamm & Co., a Co Partnership, and Jack R. Levien
See McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Russo v. Kirby
See McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966)
cited
Cited "see"
Russo v. Kirby
See McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Brody v. McCoy
See McFaddin Express, Incorporated v. Adley Corporation, 346 F.2d 424 , 427 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966); T.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp.
See also McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966) (follows Harms); Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 259 F.Supp. 624 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kemp Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. v. Hartford Automobile Dealers' Ass'n
See also McFaddin Express Inc. v. Adley Corp., 346 F.2d 424 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1026 , 86 S.Ct. 643 , 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES Et Al.
v.
WILSON & CO., INC., Et Al.
v.
WILSON & CO., INC., Et Al.
56.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 31, 1966.
Solicitor General Marshall for the United States et al., Howard J. Trienens for respondents American Telephone & Telegraph Có. et al.
Per Curiam.
Published
Per Curiam.
The joint motion of counsel to remand is granted and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in order to permit the entry of a decree of restitution in accordance with the agreement of the parties.