DUNCAN COFFEE CO.

v.

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1950)
  …gistered by the cashier, said frame being open at the end adjacent the cashier’s stand and readily movable to be returned over said portion so as to receive the merchandise of another customer while the cashier is occupied with the previous group.” 339 U. S. 947. Finding of Fact No. 15 of District Judge Picard, whose opinion appears at 78 F. Supp. 388. E. g., Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139; Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U. S. 428. The Index to Legal Periodicals reveals no le…
• United States v. Sec. Tr. & Sav. Bank, 340 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1950)
  …n, and secondly in payment of any federal tax liens.3 The District Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed. 93 Cal. App. 2d 608, 209 P. 2d 657. The Supreme Court of California declined to hear the case, and we granted certiorari. 339 U. S. 947.4 The four cases were consolidated below for purposes of appeal, and Morrison’s claims of priority were treated as a single issue. They are treated here in the same manner. Section 537 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a plain…
• Arrowsmith v. United Press Int'l, 320 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1963)
  …uipment Corp., 200 F.Supp. 678 (N.D.Cal.1961), citing L. D. Reeder Contractors of Arizona v. Higgins Industries, Inc., 265 F. 2d 768, 776-79 (9 Cir. 1959) ; Tenth: Steinway v. Majestic Amusement Co., 179 F. 2d 681, 684 (10 Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 947, 70 S.Ct. 802, 94 L.Ed. 1362 (1950) (“we know that the Oklahoma courts have not gone so far [as the 14th Amendment permits], and we cannot now forecast that they will”). There thus exists an overwhelming consensus that the. amenability _ of_ a fore…

  ← 1 / 2 →