GALBAN LOBO CO.

v.

HENDERSON

Citator

Cited By

• Linens v. Bowles, 144 F.2d 874 (Emer. Ct. App. 1944)
  …be questioned whether the interpretation made by the New York Regional Office afforded the complainant new grounds of protest which rendered its protest timely. See Galban Lobo Co. v. Henderson, Em.App. [*877] 1942, 132 F. 2d 150, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 756, 63 S.Ct. 530, 87 L.Ed. 1130; United States Gypsum Co. v. Brown, Em. App. 1943, 137 F. 2d 803, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 799, 64 S.Ct. 427. Since subsequently to the filing of complainant’s protest Congress struck out of the Act4 all time limitatio…
• R. E. Schanzer, Inc. v. Bowles, 141 F.2d 262 (Emer. Ct. App. 1944)
  …ny provision of such regulation, order, or price schedule may file such a protest based solely on grounds arising after the expiration of such sixty days.” As we stated in Galban Lobo Co. v. Henderson, Em.App. 1942, 132 F. 2d 150, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 756, 63 S.Ct. 530, 87 L.Ed. 1130, these provisions are imperfectly expressed. It is clear enough from the first sentence that a protest against a regulation not based on new grounds arising after its issuance must be filed within 60 days after the issua…
• Maynard v. Sutherland, 313 F.2d 560 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
  …d. And see Coleman v. Jackson, 109 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 244, 286 F. 2d 98, 100 (1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 933, 81 S.Ct. 1656, 6 L.Ed.2d 391 (1961) ; cf. Fairclaw v. Forrest, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 130 F. 2d 829, 143 A.L.R. 1154 (1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 756, 63 S.Ct. 531, 87 L.Ed. 1130 (1943). . Civil Action 3454, Maynard v. Sutherland, was thereupon commenced and will hereinafter be the subject of more particular discussion. . See generally, Shapiro v. Christopher, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 195 F. 2d 785…