green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639 James F. Woodward v. Michael Dipalermo Maria Triggs, Secretary/treasurer, Yellow Bus Lines
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959) (high union official in charge of a strike and directly involved in its unlawful activity "was high enough in the hierarchy * * * to render [the] organization liable for the consequences of conduct of its members under his general leadership"); see also Kayser-Roth Corp. v. Textile Workers Union of America, 479 F.2d 524, 527-28 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed.2d 219 (1973) (acts of high officials in violatio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959) (high union official in charge of a strike and directly involved in its unlawful activity “was high enough in the hierarchy * * * to render [the] organization liable for the consequences of conduct of its members under his general leadership”); see also Kayser-Roth Corp. v. Textile Workers Union of America, 479 F.2d 524, 527-28 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed.2d 219 (1973) (acts of high officials in viol…
discussed
Cited "see"
Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639 James F. Woodward v. Michael Dipalermo Maria Triggs, Secretary/treasurer, Yellow Bus Lines
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959) (high union official in charge of a strike and directly involved in its unlawful activity "was high enough in the hierarchy * * * to render [the] organization liable for the consequences of conduct of its members under his general leadership").
discussed
Cited "see"
Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959) (high union official in charge of a strike and directly involved in its unlawful activity “was high enough in the hierarchy * * * to render [the] organization liable for the consequences of conduct of its members under his general leadership”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Misco, Inc., Mid-South Aluminum Company, and Everett W. Fielder, Jr. v. United States Steel Corporation and Alside, Incorporated
Chattanooga Foundry, 127 F.2d at 30-31; see United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 61-63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Management Investors v. United Mine Workers Of America
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 61-63 (6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Management Investors v. United Mine Workers
See United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 263 F.2d 52, 61-63 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Transpacific Carriers Corp. v. The Tug Ellen F. McAllister
See Pannell v. Unit ed States Lines Co., 263 F.2d 497 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Transpacific Carriers Corporation v. The Tug Ellen F. Mcallister
See Pannell v. United States Lines Co., 263 F.2d 497 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mull v. Colt Co.
See Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.), (dissenting opinion), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959); 2 Harper & James, Torts 1042 (1956); Seavey, Mr. Justice Cardozo and the Law of Torts, 52 Harv.L.Rev. 372, 381 (1939).
cited
Cited "see"
James A. Whittaker v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital
See Overholser v. Leach, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 289 , 257 F.2d 667 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1152 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959); Overholser v. O’Beirne,-U.S.App.D.C. -, - F.2d -.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. Porta
(2×)
Co. v. Owensboro Milling Co., 6 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 109, 110-111 ; French Renovating Co. v. Ray Renovating Co., 6 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 945, 947 ; General Motors Corp. v. Rubsam Corp., 6 Cir., 65 F.2d 217, 218 , certiorari denied 1933, 290 U.S. 688 , 54 S.Ct. 123 , 78 L.Ed. 593 ; accord, United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 6 Cir., 263 F.2d 52, 59-60 , certiorari denied 1959, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1149 , 3 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Donald Ragsdale v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital
See Carter v. United States, 1956, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 227, 252 F.2d 608 . 10 We first dealt with this in Overholser v. Leach, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 289 , 291, 257 F.2d 667, 669 , certiorari denied, 1959, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1152 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 , where a unanimous court held that the person seeking release has the "burden of showing that the refusal of the superintendent to issue the statutory certificate was arbitrary or capricious." Perhaps more important in its bearing on the instant case was the court's discussion of the civil commitment procedures, which appellant urges as the only …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seguros Comercial Americas S.A. De C v. v. American President Lines, Ltd.
See, e.g., Pannell v. U.S. Lines Co., 263 F.2d 497, 498 (2d Cir.) (definition of the term “package” that appeared in the bill of lading controlled over an inconsistent definition in COGSA), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Ashland Oil Co. —Thomas Petroleum Transit Div., 527 F.2d 502 , 507 (3d Cir.1975) (parties could have extended, but neglected to do so, COG-SA’s statute of limitations provision to agent of carrier); Commonwealth Petrochemicals, Inc. v. S/S Puerto Rico, 607 F.2d 322, 328 (4th Cir.1979) (specific definition of “…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
See also Pannell v. U.S. Lines, 263 F.2d 497, 498 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959) ("if [COGSA] applied ex proprio vigore the yacht, like the tractor in the Gulf Italia case, could not be deemed a ‘package,’ and the parties by so describing it could not reduce the carrier’s liability.’’). 4 .Ocean bills of lading are considered contracts of adhesion.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Croft & Scully Co. v. M/V SKULPTOR VUCHETICH
See, e. g., Pannell v. United States Lines Company, 263 F.2d 497 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. M v. Vishva Shobha
See, e. g., Pannell v. United States Lines Co., 263 F.2d 497, 498 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1151 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959); Waterman S.S.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Merced v. Auto Pak Co.
See also Clark, J., dissenting in Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.) (interpreting Campo as not shifting “the basic inquiry as to the reasonable foreseeability of the danger to a sterile definitional quibble over whether the injury was caused by a ‘latent’ or a ‘patent’ defect”), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix Merced and Modesta Merced v. Auto Pak Co., Inc., S & C Liquidating Corp., Auto Pak Co., Inc., Third Party v. Southbridge Towers, Inc., Third-Party
See also Clark, J., dissenting in Messina v. Clark Equipment Co., 263 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir.) (interpreting Campo as not shifting "the basic inquiry as to the reasonable foreseeability of the danger to a sterile definitional quibble over whether the injury was caused by a 'latent' or a 'patent' defect"), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013 , 79 S.Ct. 1150 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1959). 9 We need not, however, take a position on whether the more charitable view of the Campo decision is correct, since Campo itself has been modified and the focus of our inquiry has been redirected by Bolm v. Triumph Corp., sup…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Messina, Administratrix
v.
Clark Equipment Co.
v.
Clark Equipment Co.
No. 863.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1959.
359 U.S. 1013
Julian Buchbinder for petitioner., John P. Smith for respondent.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.