HOBBS

v.

ALASKA

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1971)
  …S. 311 (1928), and two attempts on the part of the defendants to have it modified in light of alleged changed circumstances. United States v. Swift Co., 286 U. S. 106 (1932); United States v. Swift & Co., 189 F. Supp. 885, 892 (ND Ill. 1960), aff’d, 367 U. S. 909 (1961). Thus the decree stood at the time this case arose, and still stands, as originally written. The Government does not contend that Greyhound’s acquisition of controlling interest in Armour subjects [*677] Greyhound to punishment for contempt…
• Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119 (7th Cir. 1972)
  …7, 94 L.Ed. 750 (1950). The unreversed decision on a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit. United States v. Swift & Co., 189 F. Supp. 885, 902 (N.D.Ill.1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 909, 81 S.Ct. 1918, 6 L.Ed.2d 1249 (1961). The rule of the law of the case is applied within the federal system. When a federal district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, its adjudication is the law of the case and is bind…
• Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 320 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1963)
  …of business under ICC regulations and do not represent the lawyer’s work product within the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). See United States v. Swift & Co., 24 F.R.D. 280, 282 (N.D.Ill.1959), aff’d, 367 U.S. 909, 81 S.Ct. 1918, 6 L.Ed.2d 1249; Morrone v. Southern Pac. Co., 7 F.R.D. 214 (S.D.Calif.1947); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 26.23 [8-1], at 1387 (2d ed. 1962 repl.). Defendant Pyle also challenged Goosman’s motion for production because of failur…