CHICAGO, TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

v.

GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY ET AL. V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; GUARANTY TRUST CO. ET AL. V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; GLINES ET AL. V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; ORTON ET AL. V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; AND UNITED STATES TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Baird v. Franklin, 141 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1944)
  …d ultimate inferences as to states of mind and standards of reasonable notice or duty to inquire, which really decide the case. Kuhn v. Princess Lida, 3 Cir., 119 F. 2d 704; Murray v. Noblesville Milling Co., 7 Cir., 131 F. 2d 470, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 832. On the evidence we are unable to accept either as fact or law the inferences and conclusions drawn by the district court from the undisputed testimony of the witnesses (all called by the plaintiffs), particularly of Simmons and Willia…
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 237 F.2d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
  …ir., 1943, 133 F. 2d 721, 726; National Labor Relations Board v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 6 Cir., 1945, 147 F. 2d 262, 268; National Labor Relations Board v. Quality & Service Laundry, Inc., 4 Cir., 1942, 131 F. 2d 182, 183, certiorari denied, 1943, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1144. Post-amendment decisions: National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., 6 Cir., 1952, 198 F. 2d 645, 652, certiorari denied, 1953, 345 U.S. 906, 73 S.Ct. 644, 97 L.Ed. 1342; National Labor Relations Board v. W…
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stark, 525 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1975)
  …Even before the tightening effected by the Taft-Hartley Act, the Board had received two judicial instructions with respect to application of “the rule.” In N.L.R.B. v. Quality & Service Laundry, Inc., 131 F. 2d 182, 183 (4 Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1144 (1943), a distinguished panel (Parker, Soper and Dobie, C. JJ.) advised, in a per curiam opinion, that in courts of law the issue whether or not witnesses are to be separated “is a matter resting in the sound discretion…