SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY

v.

LEO L. D'UTASSY

Citator

Cited By

• Munro v. United States, 303 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1938)
  …he parties and reasons for the judgment. Affirmation here, upon authority of United States v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, of the District Court’s judgment in United States v. Mill Creek, etc., and two similar causes (Nos. 103, 104, 105, Oct. Term 1919), 251 U. S. 539, cannot properly be regarded as authority for a view contrary to the one we now approve. Those causes came up under a statute which permitted direct appeals from District Courts solely upon questions of jurisdiction. We determined only that the Dist…
• United States v. Chicago Golf Club, 84 F.2d 914 (7th Cir. 1936)
  …it must be brought against the United States, under the provisions of a federal statute, that such time “is strictly a condition of the remedy given, and not a statute of limitations m bar of the action.” This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 251 U.S. 539, 40 S.Ct. 118, 64 L.Ed. 404. The time within which suit must be begun, as provided in section 19 of the World War Veterans’ Act 1924, as amended (38 U.S.C.A. § 445), has been held to be a condition upon which the government has given its consent to…
• Munro v. United States, 89 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1937)
  …ult in the case at bar and in Miller v. United States, 13 F.Supp. 684 (D.C.W.D.N.Y.). Upon a direct writ of error to the Supreme Court, Judge Dickinson’s decision was affirmed in a per curiam opinion, United States v. Mill Creek & M. H. N. & R. Co., 251 U. S. 539, 40 S.Ct. 118, 64 L.Ed. 404; but we think that such affirmance must be construed only as a holding that the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit without consideration of the question whether the United States had been pr…