BARNES

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Prods. Co., 191 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1951)
  …81 F. 2d 341; Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., 6 Cir., 1945, 148 F. 2d 407; Dearborn Nat. Cas. Co. v. Consumers Petroleum Co., 7 Cir., 1947, 164 F. 2d 332. . See, J. E. Haddock, Ltd. v. Pillsbury, 9 Cir., 1946, 155 F. 2d 820, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 719, 67 S.Ct. 53, 91 L.Ed. 624.…
• In the Matter of: Meyerland Co. v. Meyerland Co., 960 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1992)
  …he Pacific Railroad Removal Cases. See Pernie Bailey Drilling Co. v. FDIC, 905 F. 2d 78 (5th Cir.1990); Franklin National Securities Litigation v. Andersen, 532 F. 2d 842 (2d Cir.1976); FDIC v. George-Howard, 153 F. 2d 591 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 719, 67 S.Ct. 53, 91 L.Ed. 623 (1946). Thus, nothing in the history of federal jurisdiction compels us to ignore the plain meaning of § 1819 and find that it creates a more restricted type of removal jurisdiction than its language allows. Similarly, a…
• Markert v. Swift & Co., Inc., 173 F.2d 517 (2d Cir. 1949)
  …v. 21, 1947,” appears to refer only to the actual filing of the order bearing a formal date of the previous day; it is therefore the date of the judgment. F. R. 58, supra; J. E. Haddock, Ltd., v. Pillsbury, 9 Cir., 155 F. 2d 820, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 719, 67 S.Ct. 53, 91 L.Ed. 624. The reference in the notice of appeal to the order dated November 21, 1947, “dismissing the complaint,” etc., was thus so explicit that there could be no doubt as to the subject matter of tho appeal. By incorporating by…