BUCHANAN ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• In re Uranium Antitrust Litig. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. RIO Algom Ltd., 617 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …F. 2d 434 (3rd Cir. 1977). . Schofíeld v. Palmer, 134 F. 753 (W.D.Va. 1904); Mirabile v. Smith, 119 Cal.App.2d 685, 260 P. 2d 179, 181 (1953). . See e. g. Barnes v. Boyd, 8 F.Supp. 584 (S.D.W.Va.), aff’d 73 F. 2d 910 (4th Cir. 1934), cert. denied, 294 U.S. 723, 55 S.Ct. 550, 79 L.Ed. 1254 (1935); Exquisite Form Industries, Inc. v. Exquisite Fabrics of London, 378 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Davis v. National Mortgage Corp., 349 F. 2d 175 (2d Cir. 1965); McLeod v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 159, 150 P. 535 (1915). .…
• Mayers v. Ridley, 465 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  …could remove it. Indeed, the whole purpose of a traditional action to quiet title was to clarify the status of putatively invalid claims. See, e. g., Barnes v. Boyd, S.D.W.Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, 597, affirmed, 4 Cir., 73 F. 2d 910 (1934), cert. denied, 294 U.S. 723, 55 S.Ct. 550, 79 L.Ed. 1254 (1935). Surely if our courts possess the institutional competence to wrestle with contingent remainders and the Rule Against Perpetuities in such an action, they can also. vindicate basic constitutional and statutory,…
• Harlan v. Sparks, 125 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1942)
  …te to provide that a suit to quiet title may be maintained against one in possession. Whitehead v. Shattuck, supra; Lawson v. United States Mining Company, 207 U.S. 1, 28 S.Ct. 15, 52 L.Ed. 65; Barnes v. Boyd, 4 Cir., 73 F. 2d 910, certiorari denied 294 U.S. 723, 55 S.Ct. 550, 79 L.Ed. 1254. Here, however, the controversy is between two groups of co-tenants. The appellees have not been ousted. They cannot maintain an action in ejectment. Barnitz’s Lessee v. Robert Casey, 7 Cranch 456, 3 L.Ed. 403; Kyle v.…