TEXAS

v.

NEW MEXICO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 110 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. 1940)
  …e involving state law at the time it first reaches a Federal reviewing court, or the rule governing decision of cases involving federal law by reviewing courts thus unfettered by Section 34 of the Judiciary Act. Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co., 298 U.S. 639, 56 S.Ct. 679, 80 L.Ed. 1372, doesn’t reach it. Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe R. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U.S. 503, 32 S.Ct. 542, 56 L.Ed. 860, is an appeal from the decision of the court of last resort of the state and not from a decision of a lower Federal…
• Texas v. New Mexico, 308 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1939)
  …exico and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to the extent of one-half of all sums heretofore disbursed by it on account of expenses of the Special Master. (Earlier phases of this litigation are reported in 296 U. S. 547; 297 U. S. 693, 698; 298 U. S. 639, 644; 300 U. S. 645; 302 U. S. 658; 304 U. S. 551.)…
• Miller v. United States Gypsum Co., 96 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1938)
  …be the case in respect to similar counts alleging fraud which may be found in Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co., 270 N.Y. 287, 200 N.E. 824, 104 A.L.R. 450, and Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co., 2 Cir., 76 F. 2d 115, 117, reversed 298 U.S. 639, 56 S.Ct. 679, 80 L.Ed. 1372, on other grounds. See, also, Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N.Y. 259, 11 N.E. 2d 902. Plaintiff’s counsel argue that the fraud-count in the amended complaint nowhere charges the defendant with negligence but alleges…