UNITED STATES

v.

LINDSAY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Chicago v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1954)
  …Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and [*578] reversed the District Court’s denial of the motion to remand, and ordered the cause remanded to the state court. 204 F. 2d 116, 204 F. 2d 954. We granted certiorari, 346 U. S. 810. The Order Denying the Motion to Remand. Obviously, such an order is not final and appealable if standing alone. Reed v. Lehman, 91 F. 2d 919; Miller v. Pyrites Co., 71 F. 2d 804. While these two cases were separate actions pending on the docket of…
• United States v. Lindsay, 346 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1954)
  …ising prior to the 1948 Act “accrued” not when the suit arose but when the Act became effective. Field Packing Co. v. United States, 197 F. 2d 329. This conflict among the circuits as to the statutory meaning of “accrued” led us to grant certiorari. 346 U. S. 810. The question here is whether Government claims growing out of the Corporation’s transactions prior to the Act “accrued” on the date a right to sue came into existence or on the date the Act became effective. In common parlance a right accrues when…
• Gen. Protective Comm. for the Holders of Option Warrants of the United Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 346 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1954)
  …ordingly the Court of Appeals reviewed the entire plan, found it fair and equitable in all respects, and affirmed the Commission’s order. 92 U. S. App. D. C. 172, 203 F. 2d 611. The case is here on certiorari limited to the question of jurisdiction. 346 U. S. 810. The question is not whether there is judicial review of orders of the Commission. The question is which orders are reviewable in the District Court, which in the Court of Appeals. The first reading of the Act may leave the impression that there is…