SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
v.
GILEO ET AL.; STERLING V. LOCAL 438, LIBERTY ASSOCIATION OF STEAM & POWER PIPE FITTERS & HELPERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
GILEO ET AL.; STERLING V. LOCAL 438, LIBERTY ASSOCIATION OF STEAM & POWER PIPE FITTERS & HELPERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
350 U.S. 943
Supreme Court of the United States (1956)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cahill v. New York, 351 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1956)…passed on by the Court of Appeals, urging that we reconsider our judgment and modify it to the extent necessary to remand the cause to the Court of Appeals to pass on the question it had left undecided. This Court denied the petition for rehearing. 350 U. S. 943. The railroad’s present “motion to recall” presents precisely the same contention which was raised in its petition [*186] for rehearing. We are asked once more to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for that court to dete…1 / 2
-
Waller H. Kaltreider and Irene C. Kaltreider v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 255 F.2d 833 (3d Cir. 1958)…A.L.R.2d 761; Rollingwood Corp. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1951, 190 F. 2d 263. . Achong v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1957, 246 F. 2d 445, 447. . Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U.S. 46, 76 S.Ct. 20, 100 L.Ed. 29, rehearing denied, 1955, 350 U.S. 943, 76 S.Ct. 297, 100 L.Ed. 823. It is there stated 350 U.S. at page 52, 76 S.Ct. at page 24: “ * * * But the capital-asset provision of § 117 must not be so broadly applied as to defeat rather than further the purpose of Congress. Burnet v. Harmel, 2…
-
Gondeck v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 382 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1965)…apposite. Cahill was an FELA case in which this Court reversed summarily a judgment of the Court of Appeals overturning a district court judgment for the plaintiff, 350 U. S. 898. Later that same Term, after a petition for rehearing had been denied, 350 U. S. 943, the Court was persuaded on “a [*31] motion to recall and amend the judgment” that its mandate, which simply reinstated the District Court’s judgment, was incorrect and that the case should properly have been remanded to the Court of Appeals for fur…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence