UNITED STATES

v.

SCHNEER'S ATLANTA, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Sardino v. The Fed. Reserve Bank OF NEW York & the Sec'y of the Treas. of the United States, 361 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1966)
  …he Court went to some pains to avoid the issue here discussed, finding the attacks on the statute itself to be substantial; particularly in view of this we do not regard the brief per eimam in FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U.S. 977, 77 S.Ct. 381, 1 L.Ed.2d 363 (1957), as settling the law contrary to the views we have expressed. . We are thus not required to consider whether the district judge’s failure to request the assistance of two others could be supported by the fact that the request was simply for…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Rosenbloom v. United States, 355 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1957)
  …y had actual notice of the entry of that order by reason of the proceedings which took place in the District Court on June 14.* Cf. [*81] Huff v. United States, 192 F. 2d 911; Gonzalez v. United States, 233 F. 2d 825, 827, reversed on other grounds, 352 U. S. 978. What transpired at those proceedings is too ambiguous to permit the conclusion that petitioner and his attorney were not justified in believing that petitioner’s time to appeal would begin to run on July 8. In these circumstances we think that the…
• Davis v. United AIR Lines, Inc., 662 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …g., Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1075, 60 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969); Federal Housing Administration v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84, 77 S.Ct. 381, 1 L.Ed.2d 363 (1958). Here, the notion that the view of a subsequent Congress forms a weak foundation for inferring the intent of an earlier one, see Consumer Product Safety Comm’n. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 117, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2060, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (…