PENSICK & GORDON, INC.,

v.

CALIFORNIA MOTOR EXPRESS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States, 433 F.2d 212 (8th Cir. 1970)
  …rther difficulties are encountered by the gloss put upon the T.I.M.E. decision in the case of Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Eastern Freight-ways, Inc., 371 U.S. 84, 83 S.Ct. 157, 9 L.Ed.2d 142 (1962), and Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. California Motor Express, 371 U.S. 184, 83 S.Ct. 264, 9 L.Ed.2d 227 (1962). Mr. Justice Harlan, the author of the T.I.M.E. decision dissented with two other justices, in the latter two cases. The Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co. case involved a state court proceeding i…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …urt’s refusal of Eldridge’s timely request for an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint was an “abuse of [its] discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 227 (1962). The district court’s dismissal of Eldridge’s complaint is hereby REVERSED. . Article IV provides in relevant part A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another Stat…
• Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. Cal. Motor Express, 323 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1963)
  …lso rightly dismissed by the District Court upon the same grounds. The Supreme Court has now remanded to us “for further consideration in light of Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., [371 U.S, 84, 83 S.Ct. 157, 9 L.Ed.2d 142 (1962)]”. 371 U.S. 184, 83 S.Ct. 264, 9 L.Ed.2d 227 (1962). In the light of Hewitt-Robins, we now hold that the amended complaint states a common law cause of action which survived enactment of the Motor Carrier Act. What effect that statute or any other federal statute…