green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pup Tent 14 Military Order of Cootie of United States, Inc. v. United States
E.g., Kreiger v. United States, 539 F.2d 317, 321 (3d Cir. 1976); Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985, 986 (8th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Syntha Essex, Administratrix, Dbn, Cta of the Estate of Harry E. Judd, Deceased v. Richard P. Vinal
Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985, 986 (8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Rochelle, 363 F.2d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Catherine Decamp, Truck Insurance Exchange, Intervenor-Appellee
(2×)
Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985, 986 (8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Rochelle, 363 F.2d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 1966); Armstrong v. United States, 283 F.2d 122, 123 (3d Cir. 1960). 10 The plaintiff invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
John Vishnevsky and Margaret Vishnevsky v. United States
(2×)
See Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Rochelle, 363 F.2d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1966); Melchior v. United States, 145 F.Supp. 193 , 136 Ct.Cl. 483 (1956).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lamb v. United States
See also Canton v. United States, 388 F.2d 985 (8th Cir.1968); Recchie v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 726 (1983); Trout v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 219 (1983).
Louis S. NELSON, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, Appellant,
v.
Thomas N. CLARK, Appellee
v.
Thomas N. CLARK, Appellee
21665_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 16, 1968.
388 F.2d 985
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal, Robert R. Granucci, Michael Buzzell, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Thomas N. Clark, in pro. per.
Chambers, Pope, Dun-Iway.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM:
The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order of that court granting a writ of habeas corpus should be vacated and the petition reconsidered in the light of Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, which was not available to that court at the time of its decision herein.