green
Positive treatment
1.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952
1989
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Wien Air Alaska, Inc., Alaska Airlines Master Executive Council, Intervenor. Bp Alaska, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Wien Air Alaska, Inc., Alaska Airlines Master Executive Council, Intervenor
See, e. g., Eastern Air Lines v. C.A.B., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 331 , 185 F.2d 426 (1950), vacated as moot, 341 U.S. 901 , 71 S.Ct. 613 , 95 L.Ed. 1341 (1951); American Airlines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 231 F.2d 483 (1956). 38 Intervenor Wien contends that the CAB performed only an interpretive function and that all statutory provisions dealing with certificate amendments and enforcement proceedings are irrelevant.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
See, e. g., Eastern Air Lines v. C.A.B., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 331 , 185 F.2d 426 (1950), vacated as moot, 341 U.S. 901 , 71 S.Ct. 613 , 95 L.Ed. 1341 (1951); American Airlines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 231 F.2d 483 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nebraska Department of Aeronautics v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Frontier Airlines, Inc., Intervenor
Compare Eastern Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 331 , 185 F.2d 426, 428 , vacated with directions to dismiss as moot, 341 U.S. 901 , 71 S.Ct. 613 , 95 L.Ed. 1341 and American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 1956, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 231 F.2d 483 , 487-8. 16 A review of the legislative history of the Act and of its predecessor, the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 977 , as amended, with particular emphasis upon the 1938 Act’s §§ 401 (k) and 401(h), former 49 U.S.C.A. § 481 (k) and (h), substantially identical with § 401 (j) and § 401(g) of the pre…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stith
v.
Pinkert
v.
Pinkert
No. 571.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 9, 1951.
J. B. Booker and Tilghman E. Dixon for appellants. Left el Gentry for appellees.
Published
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for
want of a substantial federal question.