green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1940 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1940
1983
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
Shapiro v. United States
Ed. 431 ; see British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 1939, 89 Ct.Cls. 438, 441, cert. denied 1940, 310 U.S. 627 , 60 S.Ct. 974 , 84 L.Ed. 1398 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States
See Central Pines Land Co., L.L.C. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2012); Klamath, 113 Fed.Cl. at 710 ; see also British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438, 439-40 (1939) (per curiam), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 627 , 60 S.Ct. 974 , 84 L.Ed. 1398 (1940) (applying section 1500 where plaintiff sought tort damages in the district court and contract damages in the Court of Claims).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States
Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir.1988) (claims are determined by their operative facts, not by the legal theories on which they are based); see also Brit ish American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438, 440 , 1939 WL 4266 (1939), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 627 , 60 S.Ct. 974 , 84 L.Ed. 1398 (1940) (“claim” has no reference to the legal theories by which a claimant seeks to enforce his demand, but to the underlying facts).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaubert v. United States
Keene, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2040-42 ; Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1557-58 (Fed.Cir.1988) (claims arising from common facts are the same, even if all legal theories cannot be asserted in one court); see also British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438, 440 , 1939 WL 4266 (1939), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 627 , 60 S.Ct. 974 , 84 L.Ed. 1398 (1940) (terminology of recovery theories does not obscure common identity of two claims).
Fisher
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 871.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 6, 1940.
Mr. Benjamin E. Jaffe for petitioners., Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Clark, and Messrs. Arnold Raum and Maurice J. Mahoney for respondent.
Application, Consideration, Took.
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration and decision of this application.