GOODWIN ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS BEN E. GOODWIN CO.,

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Wheatley v. Adler, 407 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
  …th, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., supra; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., supra; Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Britton, supra; Gooding v. Willard, 209 F. 2d 913 (2nd Cir. 1954); Hurley v. Lowe, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 168 F. 2d 553, cert. denied, 334 U.S. 828, 68 S.Ct. 1338, 92 L.Ed. 1756 (1948); Groom v. Cardillo, supra; General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton, supra. I would affirm the District Court. . See Joint Appendix 14-16.…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Bowles v. Wilke, 175 F.2d 35 (7th Cir. 1949)
  …dman, D.C.Pa., 7 F.R.D. 12; Bowles v. Ell-Carr Co., Inc., D.C.N.Y., 71 F.Supp. 482; and United States v. Saunders Petroleum Co., Inc., D.C.Mo., 7 F.R.D. 608, the rule was complied with. In Fleming v. Goodwin, 8 Cir., 165 F. 2d 334, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 828, 68 S.Ct. 1338, the court concluded that non-compliance with the rule did not abate the action.1 However, it is interesting to note that the Administrator’s successor did file a motion for substitution within the six months period. Hearing on the mo…
• J. C. Penney Co. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 312 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …adopted a plan and then sold, they equally do not produce that result under § 392(b) tyhen such a subsidiary first sells and then adopts a plan. Cf. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 166 F. 2d 98, 101 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 334 U.S. 828, 68 S.Ct. 1338, 92 L.Ed. 1756 [*73] (1948); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed. 1943), § 4926. What § 392(b) did was make it possible for corporations acting in 1954, either before or after June 22, and otherwise within § 337, to claim or…