green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948
1987
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bloombaum
See Rawls v. United States, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 532 , cert. den. 334 U.S. 848 , 68 S.Ct. 1498 , 92 L.Ed. 1771 (1948); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
National Fireworks, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Gem Jewelry Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 991 , certiorari denied 1948, 334 U.S. 846 , 68 S.Ct. 1516 , 92 L.Ed. 1770 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Shelton v. Jones
Compare Romney v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 150 , 167 F. 2d 521 (1948), cert. denied, 334 U.S. 847 , 68 S.Ct. 1512 , 92 L.Ed. 1771 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wallace & Tiernan, Inc., Robert T. Conner, Charles E. Hough
See, e. g., Romney v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 156 , 167 F.2d 521, 527 , cert. denied, 334 U.S. 847 , 68 S.Ct. 1512 , 92 L.Ed. 1771 (1948) ; Medley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 85 , 155 F.2d 857 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 873 , 66 S.Ct. 1377 , 90 L.Ed. 1642 (1946); United States v. Brookman, 1 F.2d 528 (D.Minn.1924). 9 Certainly this is true *228 when the statute whose precise requirements have been overlooked is one intended to protect the public treasury and minimize the demands of jury service, rather than safeguard the rights of the accused.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
A-F Corporation v. Betty Lorraine Caporaletti, Alfred George Caporaletti
See, e. g., Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 908 , certiorari denied 1948, 334 U.S. 846 , 68 S.Ct. 1516 , 92 L.Ed. 1770 . 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Helen Hanna, Cicero Hanna v. Annie C. Fletcher, Trustee of Estate of Florence Johnson, Benjamin F. Fletcher, and Fred S. Gichner Iron Works, Inc.
(2×)
See also Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 908 , certiorari denied 334 U.S. 846 , 68 S.Ct. 1516 , 92 L.Ed. 1770 ; Foley v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co., supra. 5 22 The bridge described in the MacPherson case between the manufacturer of an article and its third party user, not in privity of contract with the manufacturer, is the same as that between a landlord's contractor or repairman and the tenant of the premises repaired; for in each case negligent conduct often may be expected to result in injury to one reasonably foreseen as a probable user.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Huggins
v.
Toomer et ux.
v.
Toomer et ux.
No. 813.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 14, 1948.
Cited by 27 opinions | Published
C. C. A. 4th. Motion to extend the time to serve printed papers denied. Certiorari also denied.