KOEHL ET AL.

v.

RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Ellis v. Great Sw. Corp., 646 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …5 (quoting Goldlawr, 369 U.S. at 466, 82 S.Ct. at 915; bracketed portion and ellipsis inserted by Dubin court). Accord, Mayo Clinic v. Kaiser, 383 F. 2d 653, 655-56 (8th Cir. 1967); Taylor v. Love, 415 F. 2d 1118, 1120 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1023, 90 S.Ct. 1257, 25 L.Ed.2d 533 (1970); Martin v. Stokes, 623 F. 2d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 1980). See also Atkins v. Schmutz Manufacturing Co., 401 F. 2d 731, 736 & n. 7 (4th Cir. 1968) (Craven, J., dissenting) (accepting Dubin’s rationale), modified on…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Martin v. Nelson Stokes t/a Nelson Stokes Garage and Allen R. Lisenby, 623 F.2d 469 (6th Cir. 1980)
  …f that provision, the reliance on § 1406(a) necessitates an overly broad interpretation. In confronting this issue, this Circuit has adopted the broad construction of § 1406(a). In Taylor v. Love, 415 F. 2d 1118, 1120 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1023, 90 S.Ct. 1257, 25 L.Ed.2d 533 (1970), Judge Edwards, quoting from Dubin v. United States, supra at 815, stated: “Looking to the language of § 1406, the statute is couched in terms of ‘laying venue in the wrong division or district.’ The statute do…
• E. Me. Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 658 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981)
  …ch complaint may be amended by the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing of the Board in its discretion at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon.” See NLRB v. Dennison, 419 F. 2d 1080, 1083 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1023, 90 S.Ct. 1264, 25 L.Ed.2d 533 (1970). Although the test is sometimes described as one of “close” relationship, this grant of discretion has been interpreted liberally to allow the relation back of amendments alleging acts that are part of the same…