PAONESSA

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1953)
  …objection to conviction on those grounds.35 North Carolina has applied its law in refusing this out-of-time review.36 This Court applies its jurisdictional statute in the same manner. Preston v. Texas, 343 U. S. 917, 933; cf. Paonessa v. New York, 344 U. S. 860, certiorari denied because “application therefor was not made within the time provided by law.” We cannot say that North Carolina’s action in refusing review after failure to perfect the case on appeal violates the Federal Constitution. A period of…
• S & E Contractors, Inc. v. The United States, 433 F.2d 1373 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  …verturning a decision by a Government officer authorized by the contracting parties to be the deciding authority on disputes arising under the contract. See, e. g., Bell Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 120 Ct.Cl. 398, 100 F.Supp. 661 (1951), aff’d, 344 U.S. 860, 73 S.Ct. 102, 97 L.Ed. 668 (1952); McShain Co. v. United States, 83 Ct.Cl. 405 (1936); Maryland Dredging & Contracting Co. v. United States, 66 Ct.Cl. 627 (1929). It thus becomes apparent that if the legislative intent underlying the Wunderlich Ac…
• United States Steel Corp. v. The United States, 367 F.2d 399 (Ct. Cl. 1966)
  …evelopment charges “incurred several years prior to the entry into the CPFF contracts * * * ” in Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Unit [*412] ed States, 100 F.Supp. 661, 700-701, 704, 120 Ct.Cl. 398, 469-472, 477-478 (1951), aff’d by an equally divided court, 344 U.S. 860, 73 S.Ct. 102, 97 L.Ed. 668 (1952). See also Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United States, 96 F.Supp. 464, 467, 119 Ct.Cl. 310, 324 (1951). In similar fashion, a specific Green Book provision treats the allow-ability of developmental c…