MARYLAND FOR THE USE OF LEVIN ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1965-12-06
No. 345
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court’s order., Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
382 U.S. 159 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 15 L. Ed. 2d 227 · 86 S. Ct. 305 · 1965 U.S. LEXIS 209 · SCDB 1965-018
Cited by 20 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand for trial on unresolved issues are granted as herein indicated. The judgment of this Court of May 3, 1965, 381 U. S. 41, is vacated, and in lieu thereof the following judgment is entered; “The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is modified to direct that the case be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings with respect to the unresolved issues tendered in petitioners’ bill of complaint, and is in all other respects affirmed.”

R ü SQ Qrdered

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that a remand is legally unjustified, dissent from that part of the Court’s order. Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dupuy v. Dupuy, 551 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1977)
    …p Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 1975, 421 U.S. 723, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539; List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 2 Cir. 1965, 340 F. 2d 457, cert. denied sub nom.; List v. Lerner, 382 U.S. 811, 86 S.Ct. 23,15 L.Ed.2d 60, rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 933, 86 S.Ct. 305, 15 L.Ed.2d 344; 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation, 1759-1763; 6 L. Loss, 3880 et seq.; Comment, Negligent Misrepresentations Under Rule 10-b, 32 U. Chi.L.Rev. 824, 828-33 (1965). Tort law distinguishes between intentional misrepresentations and ne…
  • N.Y. Council v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 757 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1985)
    …and supply technicians. They have been said to constitute the “backbone” of the Guard and are the only personnel on duty for much of the year. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 49, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 1298, 14 L.Ed.2d 205, vacated on other grounds, 382 U.S. 159, 86 S.Ct. 305, 15 L.Ed.2d 227 (1965). The technicians have federal civilian employee status under the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968, 32 U.S.C. § 709 (1982), and as such are assigned wage grades, receive fringe benefits, negotiate labor ag…
  • Holdiness v. A.M. Stroud, Jr., 808 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1987)
    …Dunlap, 426 U.S. 312, 313, 96 S.Ct. 2099, 2100, 48 L.Ed.2d 660 (1976). . 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). . U.S. Const, art. 1, § 8, cl. 15, 16. . 381 U.S. 41, 46, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 1296, 14 L.Ed.2d 205, vacated on other grounds, 382 U.S. 159, 86 S.Ct. 305, 15 L.Ed.2d 227 (1965). . New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 677 F. 2d 276, 278 (3d Cir.1982). . Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. at 47, 85 S.Ct. at 1297. . Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 7, 93 S.Ct…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw