COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
SOUTH TEXAS LUMBER CO.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
SOUTH TEXAS LUMBER CO.
332 U.S. 829
Supreme Court of the United States (1947)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilkerson v. McCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1949)…24 U. S. 862. Fantini v. Reading Co., 325 U. S. 856. Scarborough v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 326 U. S. 755. Chisholm v. Reading Co., 329 U. S. 807. Waller v. Northern P. T. Co., 329 U. S. 742. Wolfe v. Henwood, 332 U. S. 773. Lasagna v. McCarthy, 332 U. S. 829. Trust Co. of Chicago v. Erie R. Co., 334 U. S. 845. B. Where lower court sustained a jury verdict for the employer: Barry v. Reading Co., 324 U. S. 867. Benton v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co., 324 U. S. 843. Benson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 33…
-
Quinn v. Sw. Wood Prods., Inc., 597 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1979)…d although, if inaccurate, it could readily have been shown to be so. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 51 S.Ct. 453, 75 L.Ed. 983 (1931). Our authorities are in accord. Texas Co. v. Hood, 161 F. 2d 618 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 829, 68 S.Ct. 206, 92 L.Ed. 403 (1947); cf. a fortiori, Turner v. Southern Railway Co., 437 F. 2d 1352 (5th Cir. 1971) (wife’s undisputed testimony as to loss of consortium). It follows that since the evidence on the whole record was such that reasonab…