HOERDT, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

v.

CITY OF EVANSTON

Citator

Cited By

• Larand Leisurelies, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 523 F.2d 814 (6th Cir. 1975)
  …eview because petitioner failed to file exceptions with the Board as required by Section 10(e) of the Act5 and Section [*820] 102.46(h) of the Board’s rules and regulations.6 Geauga Plastics Co. v. NLRB, 404 F. 2d 1382 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 944, 89 S.Ct. 2017, 23 L.Ed.2d 463 (1969). Although Section 10(e) of the Act does excuse failure to raise an objection before the Board where extraordinary circumstances exist, the Court finds that no such circumstances are present in this case. We tur…
• Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co. v. The United States, 422 F.2d 425 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  …stock for $100 per share and carried the stock on its books at this amount, this is the figure which should be used to determine whether a discount has arisen. Cf. Union Pac. R.R. v. United States, 401 F. 2d 778, 185 Ct.Cl. 393 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 944, 89 S.Ct. 2017, 23 L.Ed.2d 462 (1969); Fashion Park, Inc. v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 600 (1954). Although the facts of Union Pac. R.R. are not analogous to the present case, the language and reasoning of the court offer strong support to the positio…
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. The United States, 427 F.2d 727 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  …stead, the face value of plaintiff’s old bonds at the time of their issuance is the true valuation of these [*731] securities as far as plaintiff is concerned. See Union Pac. R.R. v. United States, 401 F. 2d 778, 185 Ct.Cl. 393 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 944, 89 S.Ct. 2017, 23 L.Ed.2d 462 (1969). The fact that the fair market value of the old bonds may be less than the face value of the new bonds can in no way reduce the amount of value originally paid to plaintiff for the old securities. Consequentl…