JUSTUS
v.
NEW MEXICO; AND SCHUITEN V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
JUSTUS
NEW MEXICO; AND SCHUITEN V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
361 U.S. 921
Supreme Court of the United States (1959)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F.2d 986 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…us., Inc. v. FTC, 278 F. 2d 337, 341-342 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 173, 5 L.Ed.2d 104 (1960); Carter Prods., Inc. v. FTC, 268 F. 2d 461, 495 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 361 U.S. 884, 80 S.Ct. 155, 4 L.Ed.2d 120, rehearing denied, 361 U.S. 921, 80 S.Ct. 254, 4 L.Ed.2d 189 (1959). . See, e. g., ITT Continental Baking Co., 3 Trade Reg.Rep. 19,681 (transfer binder) (FTC, 1971); 1972 Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission at 9-10; Comment, Television Counter-advertising: “And Now a Wo…
-
Mundy v. United States, 983 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1993)…ing. The Government also asserts that Mundy’s claims are barred by the interference with contract rights exception of section 2680(h). In support of its argument, the Government cites Dupree v. United States, 264 F. 2d 140 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 921, 80 S.Ct. 253, 4 L.Ed.2d 189 (1959). In that case, the plaintiff claimed that the Government’s denial of his request for a security clearance constituted “negligent interference by a Government agent or agency with his prospective employment.” Id. 2…