OMAHA PACKING CO.

v.

PITTSBURGH, FORT WAYNE & CHICAGO RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Firfer et ux. v. United States, 208 F.2d 524 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
  …rounds, and while within the scope and area of that invitation, they undoubtedly were entitled to the protection accorded by the law to express or implied licensees. See Hanson v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Cir., 1941, 120 F. 2d 498, certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 645, 62 S.Ct. 86, 86 L.Ed. 518; Briney v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1948, 401 Ill. 181, 81 N.E. 2d 866. But it appears-from appellants’ own opening statement, and the photographs introduced as a part, thereof that when the accident happened! they were not…
• Sylvania Indus. Corp. v. Visking Corp., 132 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1943)
  …Dehydrators, Limited v. Petrolite Corp., Limited, 9 Cir., 117 F. 2d 183; Universal Sewer Pipe Corp. v. General Const. Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 132; Novadel-Agene Corp. v. Penn, 48 U.S.P.Q. 698; reversed in part 5 Cir., 119 F. 2d 764, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 645, 62 S.Ct. 85, 86 L.Ed. 517. But the defendant further contends that the plaintiff’s business methods have not so completely changed as to entitle it to relief even as to the period subsequent to May 12, 1941, when, according to the court’s decree,…