MARTINEZ ET AL.

v.

RIVERA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Hanna v. Fletcher, 231 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
  …vening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.’ * * •*» See, also, LeFoe v. Corby Co., 38 App.D.C. 54, 61-62; Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Brooks, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 26, 197 F. 2d 404, 406, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 828, 73 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed. 644. We cannot say as matter of law that the fault of Gichner, assuming it were proved, was not a cause which in natural sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced the injury. Of course the jury could fin…
• Fed. Aviation Admin. & United States v. Landy, 705 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …at appellants have raised any compelling arguments against FAA jurisdiction over these flights. We distinguish Hansen v. Arabian American Oil Co., 100 F.Supp. 183, 184-85 (E.D.N.Y.1951), aff’d on other grounds, 195 F. 2d 682 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 828, 73 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed. 645 (1952), where the operation of a private plane solely within a foreign country was held not within the ambit of the FAA rules. We specifically reject the contention that jurisdiction in-trades into the sovereignty of a for…
• Bookman v. The United States, 453 F.2d 1263 (Ct. Cl. 1972)
  …cedures must be drawn with the care, precision and procedural safeguards most commonly associated with courts of justice. Haas. v. United States, 67 Ct.Cl. 437, 444 (1929); Cf. Spencer v. United States, 121 Ct.Cl. 558, 102 F.Supp. 774, cert, denied, 344 U.S. 828, 73 S.Ct. 29, 97 L.Ed. 644 (1952). For these reasons, it is the general rule that “[e]very tribunal, judicial or administrative, has some power to correct its own errors or otherwise appropriately to modify its judgment, decree, or order.” 2 Davis,…