BUTLER

v.

BURKE, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By (46 total)

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir. 1968)
  …e review is applicable only to issues of basic fact and not to issues of ultimate fact. See Baranow v. Gibraltar Factors Corp., 366 F. 2d 584, 587 (2 Cir. 1966); Mamiye Bros. v. Barber S.S. Lines, Inc., 360 F. 2d 774, 776-778 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835, 87 S.Ct 80, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966) ; see also SEC v. R. A. Holman & Co., 366 F. 2d 456, 457-458 (2 Cir. 1966) (by implication). . We do not suggest that material facts must be disclosed immediately; the timing of disclosure is a matter for the busin…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Noritake Co., Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion, 627 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …is used in section 1304(2)(d) of COGSA, that was unmixed with any negligence on Hellenic’s part. The district court cited Mamiye Brothers v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., 241 F.Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y.1965), aff’d, 360 F. 2d 774 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835, 87 S.Ct. 80, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966), for this proposition. Mamiye Brothers defined damage caused by act of God to be damage that could not have been prevented by reasonable foresight and care. Noritake does not challenge on appeal the district court’…
• Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 480 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …) does not go to its findings of fact, as to which the “unless clearly erroneous” test applies, but to its application of the legal standards just discussed. See Mamiye Bros. v. Barber S. S. Lines, Inc., 360 F. 2d 774, 776-78 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835 (1966). We turn now to a consideration of the § 14(e) violations charged against each of the defendants. (b) Piper Family CCI’s charges against the Piper family stem from a series of communications to Piper shareholders in the form of shareholder…