UNITED STATES ET AL.

v.

FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Herm v. Stafford, 663 F.2d 669 (6th Cir. 1981)
  …corporation’s operation or some influence before the consequences of control may be imposed. Holloway v. Howerdd, 377 F.Supp. 754 (M.D.Tenn.1973), aff’d 536 F. 2d 690 (6th Cir. 1976). See also Mader v. Armel, 461 F. 2d 1123 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1032, 93 S.Ct. 465, 34 L.Ed.2d 315 (1972). The record in this case is silent as to how Dinkier exercised any control over the corporation. His position [*685] as a director, if anything, was only a misrepresentation which could have misled potential inve…
• Weiser v. Honorable Mark White, Jr., 505 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …s. The Supreme Court has not decided whether an unsuccessful applicant for intervention is “any party” appealing an order of a three-judge court “granting or denying” an injunction, as contemplated by § 1253. Oregon State Elks Ass’n v. Falkenstein, 409 U.S. 1032, 1033, 93 S.Ct. 530, 34 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of stay pending appeal), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1099, 93 S.Ct. 907, 34 L.Ed.2d 681. (1973). This Court likewise has not decided the precise issue. But we have deci…
• Francis v. The Chamber OF Commerce OF the United States, 481 F.2d 192 (4th Cir. 1973)
  …stant appeal is from a denial of a petition for intervention and not from the denial of an injunction, we believe this is the proper forum in which to contest the decision. See Mr. Justice Douglas’ dissent in Oregon State Elks Ass’n. v. Falkenstein, 409 U.S. 1032, 93 S.Ct. 530, 34 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Cf. Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, 90 S.Ct. 1763, 26 L.Ed.2d 378 (1970). The Chamber’s first contention is that the district court should have allowed it to intervene' as a matter of right under F.R.C.P. 24…