MOORE

v.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Pennington Eng'g Co. v. Spicer MFG. Corp., 165 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1947)
  …ncipal, Ford, a short time prior to the filing of the instant case, was tried first, and also decided against the appellant. Pennington Engineering Co. v. [*60] Houde Engineering Corporation, 43 F.Supp. 698; 2 Cir., 136 F. 2d 210, certiorari denied, 320 U.S. 771, 64 S.Ct. 84, 88 L.Ed. 461. The 'record in this case was introduced in evidence herein. The controversy relates to hydraulic shock absorbers of the vane or piston type, used in automobiles to lessen the shock resulting from the rebound of the compr…
• Kleinman v. Betty Dain Creations, Inc., 189 F.2d 546 (2d Cir. 1951)
  …ippis v. Chrysler Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 977, affirmed 2 Cir., 159 F. 2d 478, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 848, 67 S.Ct. 1733, 91 L.Ed. 1857; Pennington Engineering Co. v. Houde Engineering Corp., 2 Cir., 136 F. 2d 210, 216, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 771, 64 S.Ct. 84, 88 L.Ed. 461; Conmar Products Corp. v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 2 Cir., 172 F. 2d 150, 155. True, the matter of pendent federal jurisdiction appears not to have been separately discussed and possibly not thought of. But I apprehen…
• In re Helena Marine Serv. v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., 564 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …asserting it later. Timely filing of claims in the limitation proceeding is not jurisdictional; courts have entertained claims that were not timely filed.4 See, e. g., Meyer v. New England Fish Co. of Oregon, 136 F. 2d 315 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 771, 64 S.Ct. 83, 88 L.Ed. 461 (1943); see G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty § 10-15 at 853 n.54a (2d ed. 1975). While it is true that the injunction, if now dissolved, could be reinstated if Mrs. Fiers were in fact to file her claim, or shou…