MCALLISTER

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Robichaux v. Kerr McGEE OIL Indus., Inc., 376 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1967)
  …d firm conviction that a mistake has been committed in relation to the findings and conclusions of the district court concerning the issue of appellee’s negligence, McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20, modification den. 348 U.S. 957, 75 S.Ct. 447, 99 L.Ed. 748 (1954), but we are convinced that the pleadings and relevant evidence before the court raise the issue of unseaworthiness, irrespective of any possible misunderstanding between the court and counsel. Rule 1, F.R.Civ.P.; C…
• Aunt MID, Inc. v. Fjell-Oranje Lines, 458 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1972)
  …t is bound by the “clearly erroneous” test of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Our decision [*716] here reflects use of that test. Rules 1, 81 (a), Fed.R.Civ.P. See also McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954), modif. denied, 348 U.S. 957, 75 S.Ct. 447, 99 L.Ed. 748 (1955). We cannot agree with the plaintiff’s argument, advanced in its reply brief, that the “clearly erroneous” rule is inapplicable to this case because there was little conflicting testimony and, therefore, there woul…
• Nelms v. United States, 291 F.2d 390 (4th Cir. 1961)
  …rostitute herself. Under this duress, she finally yielded. . See: Mortensen v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331; Oriolo v. United States, 1945, 324 U.S. 824, 65 S.Ct. 683, 89 L.Ed. 1393; Becker v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 957, 75 S.Ct. 449, 99 L.Ed. 747; Smart v. United States, 5 Cir., 1953, 202 F. 2d 874; United States v. Boss, 2 Cir., 1958, 257 F. 2d 292. . In Bell v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 81, 83-84, 75 S.Ct. 620, 622, 99 L.Ed. 905, it was said: “ * * * When…