TINKOFF

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Horizons Titanium Corp. v. Norton Co., 290 F.2d 421 (1st Cir. 1961)
  …al Nut did contain the same unsupported overstatement. The court, however, does not seem disposed to draw a distinction between a holding and a dictum on this subject, see United States v. Tinkoff, 7 Cir., 1946, 153 F. 2d 106, 107, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 740, 67 S.Ct. 56, 91 L.Ed. 638, even when reliance on the dictum leads to Palmer’s illogic. See also the language in Thomas French & Sons v. International Braid Co., 1 Cir., 1945, 146 F. 2d 735, 737, which must be read in context. . We, of course, are…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Dugan & McNAMARA, Inc. v. Clark, 170 F.2d 118 (3d Cir. 1948)
  …thin the meaning of the jurisdictional statute; hence, the appeal must be dismissed. In re Investigation by Attorney General of United States, 2 Cir., 1939, 104 F. 2d 658; United States v. Tinkoff, 7 Cir., 1946, 153 F. 2d 106, 107, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 740, 67 S.Ct. 56, 91 L.Ed. 638. And we are assured of the continued vitality of the Cobbledick decision : see Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 1943, 319 U.S. 21, 30, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185; United States v. Johnson, 1943, 319 U.S. 503, 511, 512, 63…