REALTY OPERATORS, INC.

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; WILLIAM HENDERSON (PARTNERSHIP) V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND WILLIAMS, LIQUIDATOR, ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• Ala. Power Co. v. Ala. Elec. Coop., Inc., 394 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968)
  …851 et seq., and the agreements are specifically exempted from antitrust laws, 7 U.S.C.A. § 852. The exemption extends no further than to the agreement itself. American Co-op. Serum Ass’n v. Anchor Serum Co., 153 F. 2d 907 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 721, 67 S.Ct. 57, 91 L.Ed. 625 (1946). . Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. . 15 U.S.C.A. §§, 1-7. . See the discussion of the history in United States v. Marshall Transport Co., 322 U.S. 31, 64 S.Ct. 899, 88 L.Ed. 1110 (1944).…
• Oberman v. DUN & Bradstreet, Inc., 507 F.2d 349 (7th Cir. 1974)
  …cting is admissible, even though the declarant is available to testify. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U. S. 522, 536, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 (1915); American Cooperative Serum [*352] Ass’n v. Anchor Serum Co., 153 F. 2d 907, 912 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 721, 67 S.Ct. 57, 91 L.Ed. 625 (1946) ; VI Wigmore on Evidence § 1729 (2) (3d ed. 1940). This exception rests on the rationale that the declarant’s memory of his state of mind, at a time when there is ample opportunity for misrepresentation, is no more…
• E. v. Prentice Mach. Co. & Prentice Mach. Works, Inc., 252 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1958)
  …aused by a defendant’s wrongful acts is not authority for the proposition that a contrary finding or verdict, on that fact question must be set aside. In American Cooperative Serum Ass’n v. Anchor Serum Co., 7 Cir., 153 F. 2d 907, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 721, 67 S.Ct. 57, 91 L.Ed. 625, cited by appellants, the trial court’s action in setting aside the jury’s special verdict to the effect that the plaintiff had not been damaged by the defendant’s price cutting was affirmed. But the court there stated tha…