green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Cubeiro v. Sun Seaway Enterprises, Inc.
See Judge Friendly’s analysis in Monteiro v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicolas, S. A., 280 F.2d 568, 572-73 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 915 , 81 S.Ct. 272 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
I. Hyeon Su Jo Seong Gu Gim Yeong Ho Park Min Ho Barg Yeong Pal Seo Jeom Tae Lee Sil Gwang Jung Ju Goang Ji Je Je O Han Seon Son Chi Il Choi Weon Il Chu Chae Sok Kig Og Nam Han Bag Kil Pyeon Yun Su Park Sung Ok Ka Chae Ho Federated Korean Seamen's Union v. M/v Southern Aster Southern Aster Navigation, S.A., Edwin A. Jose, and Perfecto C. Lim Buen B. Esclamado Crescencio I. Napao Tomas N. Rosles Je Hermiles S. Pinoon, Applicants in Intervention-Appellants v. M/v Fir Grove Delica Shipping, S.A. Inui Steamship Co., Ltd., Nelson R. Raby Teofanis F. Roz Apolonio H. Torreliza Associated Marine Officers & Seaman's Union of the Philippines S. Galua Boifacio C. Tabada Leo C. Ajero Teodulo R. Rabie Marcelo G. Suarez Miguelito A. Cabales v. M/v Pine Forest Delica Shipping, S.A. Inui Steamship Co., Ltd.
Thibodeaux & Co., 295 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.Tex.1968), the court held that "to limit [the Act] only to instances in which the seafarer is discharged in an American port would be to unreasonably restrict its effect." Id. at 138 ; see also Fitzgerald v. Liberian S/T Chryssi P. Goulandris, 582 F.2d 312, 314 (4th Cir.1978) (extraterritorial discharge does not preclude application of the Act). 61 Other courts have followed the view expressed in dictum by Judge Friendly in Monteiro v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicolas, S.A., 280 F.2d 568 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 915 , 81 S.Ct. 272 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 (1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE
See Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE, opinion at p. 8-9 (filed August 13, 1990); see also Su v. M/V SOUTHERN ASTER, 767 F.Supp. 205, 207 (D.Or.1990) citing Cuevas v. Reading and Bates Corp., 770 F.2d 1371, 1380 (5th Cir.1985) and Monteiro v. Sociedad Maritima San Nicolas, S.A., 280 F.2d 568, 574 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 915 , 81 S.Ct. 272 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 (1960).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Draughn
See also State v. Buffa, 31 N.J. 378, 380 (1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. 916 , 81 S.Ct. 279 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose Antonio Rivera
See, e. g., United States v. Magin, 280 F.2d 74 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 914 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 (1960); United States v. Nieoletti, 310 F.2d 359 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 942 , 83 S.Ct. 935 , 9 L.Ed.2d 968 (1962).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Edwin Nathaniel Gebhard v. United States
See also United States v. Magin, 7 Cir., 1960, 280 F.2d 74 , cert. denied, 1960, 364 U.S. 914 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rochelle
See, e. g., Santos v. United States, 277 F.2d 806 (Ct.Cl.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 913 , 81 S.Ct. 278 , 5 L.Ed.2d 227 (I960). 14 Instead, the rule is that the Tax Court can only determine the amount of the overpayment for the taxable year, and, in order to recover this sum from the United States, the taxpayer must bring suit in a Federal district court.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William J. Rochelle, Jr., Trustee in Bankruptcy of Gulf Southwestern Transportation Co., William J. Rochelle, Jr., Trustee in Bankruptcy of Gulf Southwestern Transportation Co. v. United States
See, e. g., Santos v. United States, 277 F.2d 806 (Ct.Cl.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 913 , 81 S.Ct. 278 , 5 L.Ed.2d 227 (1960). 14 Instead, the rule is that the Tax Court can only determine the amount of the overpayment for the taxable year, and, in order to recover this sum from the United States, the taxpayer must bring suit in a Federal district court.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William J. Jackson v. United States
(2×)
See also United States v. Magin, 280 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 914 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 228 , rehearing denied 364 U.S. 944 , 81 S.Ct. 458 , 5 L.Ed.2d 375 (1961), where the District Court, citing Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395 , 79 S.Ct. 1237 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 , said: 16 'It is established that the burden is on the defense to show that a particularized need exists for the minutes which outweighs the policy of secrecy.' 280 F.2d at page 79 . 17 And see Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., D.C., 21 F.R.D. 233 . 18 In the case b…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The R. A. Turrentine
v.
American Home Assurance Co.
v.
American Home Assurance Co.
No. 481.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 5, 1960.
Robert Eikel for petitioner. Edmond J. Ford, Jr. for respondents.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.