CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
PENNSYLVANIA
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
371 U.S. 856
Supreme Court of the United States (1962)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gondeck v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 382 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1965)…ip, and “no evidence that furnishes a link by which the activity in which Gondeck was engaged was related to his employment.” Id., at 77. On June 11, 1962, we denied certiorari. 370 U. S. 918. On October 8, 1962, we denied a petition for rehearing. 371 U. S. 856. We are now apprised, however, of “intervening circumstances of substantial . . . effect,”* justifying application of the established doctrine that “the interest in finality of litigation must yield where the [*27] interests of justice would make un…1 / 3
-
Claudiatte Pierce v. Cook & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 720 (10th Cir. 1975)…trict of Florida. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Pan American World Airways, Incorporated, 5 Cir., 299 F. 2d 74. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, 370 U.S. 918, 82 S.Ct. 1556, 8 L.Ed.2d 499, and on October 8, 1962, denied rehearing, 371 U.S. 856, 83 S.Ct. 17, 9 L.Ed.2d 93. The survivors of a second man killed in the same accident litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia and lost but the Fourth Circuit reversed and upheld the right to recover. Pan American World Airways, Incorporated v…
-
In re Orval Wyse v. Bankruptcy, 340 F.2d 719 (6th Cir. 1965)…Rule 73(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Gager v. Bob Seidel, 300 F. 2d 727 (C.A.D.C., 1962); United States v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 299 F. 2d 74 (C.A.5,1962), cert. denied 370 U.S. 918, 82 S.Ct. 1556, 8 L.Ed.2d 499, rehearing denied 371 U.S. 856, 83 S.Ct. 17, 9 L.Ed.2d 93; Papanikolaou v. Atlantic Freighters, Ltd., 232 F. 2d 663 (C.A.4, 1956). A misdescription in the notice of appeal of the order appealed from does not invalidate the appeal. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pa…