CHASE SECURITIES CORP., NOW KNOWN AS AMEREX HORDING CORP.,

v.

DONALDSON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• John Ed Clay and wife v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1983)
  …since rejected old doctrines of substantive,! due process which said that a liberalizing:; change in a statute of limitations abridges1; vested rights. See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 89 L.Ed. 1628, reh. denied, 325 U.S. 896, 65 S.Ct. 1561, 89 L.Ed. 2006 (1945) (statutory:, amendment abolishing limitations defense did not deprive defendant of any right);: Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S.Ct. 209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885) (statutes of limitations! go to matters of remedy r…
• Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 696 F.2d 459 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …long since rejected old doctrines of substantive due process which said that a liberalizing change in a statute of limitations abridges vested rights. See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 89 L.Ed. 1628, reh. denied, 325 U.S. 896, 65 S.Ct. 1561, 89 L.Ed. 2006 (1945) (statutory amendment abolishing limitations defense did not deprive defendant of any right); Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S.Ct. 209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885) (statutes of limitations go to matters of remedy rathe…
• Hurd v. Hodge, 162 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1947)
  …e, 58 App.D.C. 357, 30 F. 2d 981, certiorari denied, 279 U.S. 871, 49 S.Ct. 512, 73 L.Ed. 1007; Mays v. Burgess, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 147 F. 2d 869, 871, 162 A.L.R. 168, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 868, 65 S.Ct. 1406, 89 L.Ed. 1987, rehearing denied 325 U.S. 896, 65 S.Ct. 1567, 89 L.Ed. 2006. The appellants here have presented no contention that is not answered by those decisions. Thus, what we said in Mays v. Burgess when it was before us for the first time is applicable here; “Unless, therefore, we are…

  ← 1 / 2 →