LUPTON MANUFACTURING CO.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …n. 124. The Court’s per curiam dismissal a few months later on an appeal from a denial of intervention in a case involving similar facts supports the District of Columbia Circuit court's evaluation of Cascade. See Lupton Mfg. Co. v. United States, 388 U.S. 457, 87 S.Ct. 2112, 18 L.Ed.2d 1318, dismissing appeal from United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 41 F.R.D. 342 (E.D.Mo.1967). . The "may be” language does not come from the amended Rule 24(a) that was before the Court in Trbovich, which it quoted…
• Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. OF Educ., 427 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …ed to circumscribe the execution of the Court’s mandate. Id. at 136, 87 S.Ct. 932. Arguably, a strict application of this liberal reading of Rule 24(a) (2) would support appellants’ motion for intervention. But, in Lupton Mfg. Co. v. United States, 388 U.S. 457, 87 S.Ct. 2112, 18 L.Ed.2d 1318 (1967), decided a few months after Cascade, the Supreme Court indicated that Cascade was not to be read so broadly. In Lupton the Court dismissed per curiam an appeal from a denial of intervention in a case involving…
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. The United States, 558 F.2d 985 (Ct. Cl. 1977)
  …iction of the license controversy. As we said just above, the board’s jurisdiction is established by the agreement of the parties. “[T]he coverage of the disputes clause is a matter susceptible of contractual determination, United States v. Moorman, 388 U.S. 457, 70 S.Ct. 288, 94 L.Ed. 256 [1950],” United States v. Utah Constr. & Min. Co., supra, 384 U.S. at 413, 86 S.Ct. at 1555, and so, for this very reason, the board’s jurisdiction grows out of what the parties intended, id. at 407, 86 S.Ct. 1545, in mut…