RAFFOLD PROCESS CORP.

v.

CASTANEA PAPER CO.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Meyer, 808 F.2d 912 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …n on the tolling question. . This interpretation finds substantial support in a decision of the Second Circuit interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 791, the forerunner to § 2462. In Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Darning, 98 F. 2d 751, 753 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 102, 83 L.Ed. 408 (1938), the court held that the time requirement of the statute was satisfied when the administrative proceeding — though not the judicial action — was brought within the prescribed limitations period: “[I]f the administr…
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Heinbokel, 154 F.2d 266 (3d Cir. 1946)
  …verdict or judgment and that where the probative force of the improperly excluded evidence is inconsequential, the error is not reversible. State Line & Sullivan R. Co. v. Phillips, 3 Cir., 98 F. 2d 651, at page 654 120 A.L.R. 441; certiorari denied 305 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 103, 83 L.Ed. 408. However, under the very language of the District Judge in his opinion we cannot say that the proffered evidence here was of little or no value. Storay’s testimony was the foundation of the claim sued on. On the stand he…
• Atlanta Biltmore Hotel Corp. & Bennie T. Hanson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 349 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1965)
  …g, “[m]ere diminution in value while the assets are still used is not a proper basis for obsolescence deduction.” 115 F. 2d at 798. To the same effect, see State Line & Sullivan R.R. v. Phillips, 98 F. 2d 651, 120 A.L.R. 441 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 103 83 L.Ed. 408 (1938); Becker v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 120 F. 2d 403 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 625, 62 S.Ct. 105, 86 L.Ed. 105 (1941); Radio Station WBIR, Inc., 31 T.C. 803, 807 (1959). For a discussion of allowable obsolescence…