Gen. Fin. Corp. v. Archetto, 369 U.S. 423 (1962). · Go Syfert
Gen. Fin. Corp. v. Archetto, 369 U.S. 423 (1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Welsch v. Likins (mnd, 1974-02-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Welsch v. Likins (2×)
D. Minnesota · 1974 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 , 90 S.Ct. 1409 , 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970), with General Finance Corporation v. Archetto, 93 R.I. 392 , 176 A.2d 73, 76-79 (1961), appeal dismissed for want of substantial Federal question, 369 U.S. 423 , 82 S.Ct. 879 , 8 L.Ed.2d 6 (1962); compare McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-428 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961), with Commonwealth v. Grochowiak, 184 Pa.Super. 522, 527-528 , 136 A.2d 145, 148 (1957), appeal dismissed for want of substantial Federal question, 358 U.S. 47 , 79 S.Ct. 40 , 3 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pollion v. Lewis (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Larson v. Warren, 132 So.2d 177, 181 (Fla.S.Ct.1961, per curiam), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 369 U.S. 427 , 82 S.Ct. 879 , 8 L.Ed.2d 7 ; Escobedo v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870 , 222 P.2d 1 (1950); Adams v. City of Pocatello, 91 Idaho 99 , 416 P.2d 46 (1966); cf. Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878 (1st Cir. 1953); Perez v. Tynan, 307 F.Supp. 1235 (D.C.Conn. 1969); Quetawki v. Prentice, 303 F. Supp. 737 (D.C.N.M.1968); see generally, 1 Davis — on Administrative Law (Treatise), §§ 7.08-7.10 (1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
General Finance Corp.
v.
Archetto
705.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 16, 1962.
369 U.S. 423
Aram, K. Berberian for appellant., J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General of Rhode Island, for appellee.
Black, Frankfurter, White.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.