GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL.

v.

WILLIAMS

Citator

Cited By

• Hoagland v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 75 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1954)
  …ircumstances. Whether the federal court would have given effect to the statute if the state courts had so interpreted it is a matter of pure speculation. But compare Leithauser v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 6 Cir., 124 F. 2d 117, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 663, 63 S.Ct. 942, 86 L.Ed. 1739, in which the federal court applied a similar remedial statute of the State of Ohio to a contractual limitation contained in an insurance policy, since the Ohio courts did so. In the instant case, as in the Missouri, K.…
• City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers OF Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1958)
  …r Co., 327 U. S. 385, 388. So acting, Congress in § 313 (b) prescribed the specific, complete and exclusive mode for judicial review of the Commission’s orders. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 124 F. 2d 800, 804, cert. denied, 316 U. S. 663. It there provided that any party aggrieved by the Commission’s order may have judicial review, upon all issues raised before the Commission in the motion for rehearing, by the Court of Appeals which “shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, mod…
• Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 179 F.2d 179 (3d Cir. 1949)
  …Part I, and also under Sections 205 and 206, Part II of the Federal Power Act and ordered a substantial rate reduction.2 The circumstances of Safe Harbor’s operations are referred to in our earlier opinion, 3 Cir., 124 F. 2d 800, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 663, 62 S.Ct. 943, 86 L.Ed. 1740, and need not be detailed here. It will be necessary to read that opinion in conjunction with this. We think it is sufficient presently to state that we held in our earlier opinion that the Commission was without jurisdi…

  ← 1 / 2 →