AUSTRIAN ET AL., TRUSTEES,

v.

WILLIAMS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Ogden v. United States, 303 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1962)
  …6). . Kay v. United States, 303 U.S. 1, 6, 58 S.Ct. 468, 82 L.Ed. 607 (1938); United States v. Kapp, 302 U.S. 214, 217-218, 58 S.Ct. 182, 82 L.Ed. 205 (1937); Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. United States, 198 F. 2d 753, 756 (10th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 909, 73 S.Ct. 328, 97 L.Ed. 701; United States v. Barra, 149 F. 2d 489, 490 (2d Cir. 1945); United States v. Meyer, 140 F. 2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1944). Compare United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 68-69, 71 S.Ct. 595, 95 L.Ed. 747 (1951). . The Attor…
• Melville Harris in Bankruptcy of Leonard Massello and William Massello v. Standard Accident & Ins. Co., 297 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1961)
  …rding Against Claims in Excess of Policy Limits, 2S Ins.Counsel J. 44, 48-57 (1961) (catalog of cases). . See, e. g., Harrigan v. Bergdoll, 270 U.S. 560, 46 S.Ct. 413, 70 L.Ed. 733 (1926); Austrian v. Williams, 198 F. 2d 697 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 909, 73 S.Ct. 328, 97 L.Ed. 701 (1952); Hill, The Erie Doctrine in Bankruptcy, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 1013, 1046-48 (1955). . It is not clear whether New York would hold that Standard had violated its duty to its insured under the-facts of this case. See Auerb…
• Int'l Railways OF Cent. Am. v. United Fruit Co., 373 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1967)
  …one would have been considered enough under the circumstances, and this court’s view as to the inapplicability of federal principles made it unnecessary to resolve that issue here. Austrian v. Williams, 198 F. 2d 697, 700-702 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 909, 73 [*414] S.Ct. 328, 97 L.Ed. 701 (1952).5 In Moviecolor Limited v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F. 2d 80, 88, 90 A.L.R.2d 252 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 821, 82 S.Ct. 39, 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961), we again recognized “adverse domination” of a corporati…