Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956
1991
2026
Cited for
It will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. This is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a difficult burden to meet.
- Int'l Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Nat'l Caucus of Labor Committees, 466 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published(It will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. This is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always…)
- Intern. Union, Uaw v. Nat. Caucus, Lab. Com., 466 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published(It will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. This is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always…)
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a difficult burden to meet.”
- Int'l Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Nat'l Caucus of Labor Committees, 466 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published“it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a…”
- Intern. Union, Uaw v. Nat. Caucus, Lab. Com., 466 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published“it will not do to make the presumption . . . rebuttable and then make the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high. this is particularly true where, as here, the attorney must prove a negative, which is always a…”
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation Stockholders
v.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
v.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
No. 437.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1956.
Published opinion
Armistead B. Rood, Joseph B. Hyman, Cassius M. Clay and Sidney H. Willner for appellants. Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Robert W. Ginnane and Isaac K. Hay for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and William T. Griffin and Herbert Burstein for the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., appellees.
Cited by 55 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2)
[*926] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Per Curiam:The motion of Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation Stockholders Committee for leave to intervene or, in the alternative, to file brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.