MILLER

v.

PATE, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• de Vita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1970)
  …stance of an injunction “expressly authorized by Act of Congress.” That reliance is, in this circuit at least, well placed, for Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119 (3 Cir. 1950) so holds. Vigliano v. Thevos, 390 F. 2d 55 (3 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 897, 89 S.Ct. 161, 21 L.Ed.2d 178 (1968), is not contra. It assumes the rule of Cooper v. Hutchinson, supra, but declines relief on the basis of abstention. In the absence of a controlling decision in the United States Supreme Court, Cooper v. Hutchins…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• King R. Johnson, Jr. v. United States, 600 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1979)
  …usive and in lieu of all other remedies against the United States for covered injuries.5 See Martin v. United States, 566 F. 2d 895, 897 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Charles, 130 U.S. [*1222] App.D.C. 151, 153, 397 F. 2d 712, 714, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 897, 89 S.Ct. 220, 21 L.Ed.2d 178 (1968); Dolin v. United States, 371 F. 2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1967); Rizzuto v. United States, 298 F. 2d 748, 749 (10th Cir. 1961); Aubrey v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 67, 254 F. 2d 768, 770 (1958). Accordin…
• Reynold Floyd Reep v. United States, 557 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …appears to be a split among the circuits as to the weight to be given the so-called “premises rule.” Compare United States v. Browning, 359 F. 2d 937 (10th Cir. 1966) with United States v. Charles, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 397 F. 2d 712, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 897, 89 S.Ct. 220, 21 L.Ed.2d 178 (1968). In view of the fact that there are varying opinions as to what determines coveragé under FECA, it appears appropriate that the Secretary of Labor, as administrator of FECA, make the initial determination of co…