LAYCOCK ET AL.

v.

HIDALGO COUNTY WATER CONTROL & IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12 ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …771, 76 A.L.R.2d 1113 (5 CA 1959). . Whitehouse v. Illinois Central R. Co., 349 U.S. 366, 373, 75 S.Ct. 845, 99 L.Ed. 1155 (1955) ; Laycock v. Hidalgo County AVater Control & Improvement District, 142 F. 2d 789, 155 A.L.R. 460 (5 CA), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 731, 65 S.Ct. 68, 89 L.Ed. 587 (1944). . Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 57.8, 584, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943); United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 544, 57 S.Ct. 855, 81 L.Ed. 1272 (1937). . Note 8 supra; see…
• United States v. Denson, 603 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …ndamus is an equitable remedy, the usual equitable defenses are available. See, e. g. United States v. Carter, 270 F. 2d 521 (9th Cir. 1959) (laches); Laycock v. Hidalgo County Water Control Dist. No. 12, 142 F. 2d 789, 791 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 731, 65 S.Ct. 68, 89 L.Ed. 587 (1944) (clean hands). And a court of equity has the power to shape its remedy to make it more just or effective, see Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 53-54, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916); indeed I suggest that we…
• Research Labs., Inc. v. United States, 167 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1948)
  …United States v. John J. Fulton Co., 9 Cir., 33 E.2d 506, 507; United States v. 62 Packages, More or Less, of Marmola Prescription Tablets, D.G.Wis., 48 F. Supp. 878, 887, affirmed, 7 Cir., 142 F. 2d 107, certiorari denied, Raladom v. United States, 323 U.S. 731, 732, 65 S.Ct. 68, 89 L.Ed. 587; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 395, page 420.…