RICE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY,

v.

SMITH ENGINEERING CO.; AND SAME V. SMITH ENGINEERING CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Jesse J. Avila ad Litem of Daniel Cardona v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 731 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …621] circuit: “We see no reason why we should make what we think would be an erroneous decision, because the applicable law was not insisted upon by one of the parties.” Smith Engineering Co. v. Rice, 102 F. 2d 492, 499 (9th Cir.1938), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 637, 59 S.Ct. 1034, 83 L.Ed. 1519 (1939). Therefore the fact that the plaintiffs’ briefs on appeal addressed themselves directly only to the claim of Jesus should not bind this court in dealing with that of Daniel. The judgment of the district court is…
• Margery G. Huntress v. Est. of Carroll B. Huntress, 235 F.2d 205 (7th Cir. 1956)
  …case which was not specifically called to the attention of the trial court. Goodcell v. Graham, 9 Cir., 35 F. 2d 586, affirmed 282 U.S. 409, 51 S.Ct. 186, 75 L.Ed. 415. See also Smith Engineering Co. v. Rice, 9 Cir., 102 F. 2d 492, certiorari denied 307 U.S. 637, 59 S.Ct. 1034, 83 L.Ed. 1519, and Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Scott, 5 Cir., 103 F. 2d 203. In Smith Engineering Co. v. Rice, 102 F. 2d 492, at page 499, the court said: “Appellee contends that our decision should not be placed on a ground not u…
• United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …n of counsel. “We see no reason why we should make what we think would be an erroneous decision, because the applicable law was not insisted upon by one of the parties.” Smith Engineering Co. v. Rice, 102 F. 2d 492, 499 (9th Cir.1938), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 637, 59 S.Ct. 1034, 83 L.Ed. 1519 (1939). The rule has been repeated in a variety of circumstances. Even if a concession is made by the government, we are not bound by the government’s “erroneous view of the law.” Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States,…