Tatem Manufacturing Company v United States Casetext 💋 Carpenter v United States 138 SCt 2206 201 LEd2d 507

Winters v United States Wikipedia

Analyses of Carpenter v United States 138 S Ct 2206

Manufacturing Company v United States Casetext

Greenberg v Panama Transport Company Casetext

COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES February 20 2024 February 24

Tatem v United States 275 F2d 894

Carpenter v United States

Tatem v Powell 24 A 436

Tatem Manufacturing Company v United States Casetext

Wheat v United States 486 US 153 1988 Justia US

Consolidated Industries Inc v US Casetext

Olmstead v United States Wikipedia

United States v Energy Sols Inc Casetext

Ciminelli v United States No 211170


On August 31, 1956 the California court held that the consent decree did not cover the proposed acquisition. United States v. Continental Can Company, 143 F. Supp. 787 (N.D.Cal. 1956). The consummation of the acquisition was delayed in the meantime at the Government's request. The Government then commenced this action. On September 4, 1947, the Panama Transport Company, as owner of the M.V. Esso Balboa, filed a cross-libel against the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Incorporated, the United States and the S.S. Mobilgas to recover damages sustained in the collision. A third proceeding was commenced on September 18, 1946, when the Panama Transport Company filed a. The general doctrine that the United States is not liable for interest on its failure to pay money at the time it contracted to pay it was well stated in Myerle v. United States, 33 Ct.Cl. 1, and again in Ramsey v. United States, 121 Ct.Cl. 426, 430-433, 101 F. Supp. 353. The plaintiff's attempt, in this case, to distinguish cases where. 20 janv. 2004 · The plaintiff, Darnell Tatem ("Tatem"), is confined at the State of Connecticut MacDougall/Walker Correctional Institution. He alleges that the defendant Erinn Dolan, a nurse at that facility, was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by denying him treatment when he "had something in his eye". Pending is the defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 20]. For the reasons. 22 juin 2018 · In United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983), we considered the Government's use of a "beeper" to aid in tracking a vehicle through traffic. Police officers in that case planted a beeper in a container of chloroform before it was purchased by one of Knotts's co-conspirators. 28 nov. 2024 · For example, federal courts held the fraud statutes reached such intangible interests as the right to "honest services," ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted); the right of the citizenry to an honest election, see United States v. Girdner, 754 F.2d 877, 880 (CA10 1985); and the right to privacy, United States v. 13 juil. 2017 · Foods Corp., 455 F.Supp. 108, 125–26 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (concluding that fresh pies compete with frozen pies because "the end uses of both are identical" even though the manufacturing process for "one involves a freezer and the other an oven"); United States v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 652 F.2d 72, 97 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (affirming commission's finding that satellite and terrestrial communications. 19 juil. 2007 · See Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991). All relevant terms of the parties' agreement must be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. Aleman Food Servs., Inc. v. United States, 994 F.2d 819, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Gould, 935 F.2d at 1274); Travelers Casualty Surety Company, 75 Fed. Cl. at 707. In other. In United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981), we observed that this right was designed to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process. Realizing that an unaided layman may have little skill in arguing the law or in coping with an intricate procedural system, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932); United States v. The Boyd case has been recently reaffirmed in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, and in Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28. In Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, it was held that a sealed letter entrusted to the mail is protected by the Amendments. The only contrary decision of which we are aware is an unreported one of Judge Crary in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gion v. McNamara, Civ.No.67-1563-EC, January 9, 1968. Affirmed. Read Winters v. United States, 412 F.2d 140, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database. In Bear Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 430 F.2d 152 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 1021 (1971), an accrual-basis taxpayer, in 1937, agreed to pay royalties to General Motors for the use of certain patents. Full title: John A. TATEM, Sr., Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Date published: Mar 3, 1960. Tatem Manufacturing Company v. United States Download PDF Check Treatment Opinion No. Cong. 4-58. The petition in the instant case was filed on August 7, 1958, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962). 1 reference to Maurice Johnson v. United States, 275 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1960) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit March 16, 1960 Cited by 0 other opinions. Bill by Hannah O. Tatem and others against Aden W. Powell, Mary Powell, and others, to charge Mary Powell as trustee of a house and lot for complainants and other heirs of Arthur Powell, deceased. Heard on bill, answer, and proofs. Decree for complainants. Tatum v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S. App.D.C. 386, 190 F.2d 612. The first question is whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert witness who admittedly had no independent recollection of the facts to which he testified, but who testified after reviewing his testimony recorded at the first trial. ©2024 Georgetown Law Library 111 G. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202.662.9131 https://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/. Read M-R-S Manufacturing Company v. United States, 492 F.2d 835, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database. 20 mai 1996 · We conclude that the judgment of the district court upholding the assessment of penalties for failure to comply with tax reporting, payment, and deposit requirements must be AFFIRMED. Read Valen Manufacturing Company v. U.S., 90 F.3d 1190, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database. Full title: KOMATSU MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Ltd. v. The UNITED STATES (two cases) Court: United States Court of Federal Claims. Date published: Jun 7, 1955. In Russell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 159 (1959), the Court of Claims sustained the Government's position that § 23(p)(1)(D) was not satisfied merely because the rights of the beneficiaries were nonforfeitable as a group. It held, in consequence, that amounts paid by Russell to the trustee in 1945 were not deductible in that year. Tatem v. United States Date: October 28, 1980 Citation: 499 F. Supp. 1105 Docket Number: 79-197-N Central Alabama Paving, Inc. v. James Date: October 10, 1980 Citation: 499 F. Supp. 629 Docket Number: 80-358-N Rowe v. Griffin Date: October 2, 1980 Citation: 497 F. Supp. 610 Docket Number: 80-0255-N Potter v. James. 499 F. Supp. 607 (1980) Patrice POTTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fob JAMES et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 80-154-N. United States District Court, M. D. Alabama, N. D. September 30, 1980. E.g., Atkins v. United States, 214 Ct.Cl. 186, 556 F.2d 1028 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1009 (1978); Pilla v. American Bar Assn., 542 F.2d 56 (CA8 1976); Brinkley v. Hassig, 83 F.2d 351 (CA10 1936); United States v. Corrigan, 401 F. Supp. 795 (Wyo.1975). [Footnote 18]. Tatem Manufacturing Company v. the United States.no. Cong. 4-58*, 386 F.2d 898 (Ct. Cl. 1967) Annotate this Case. U.S. Court of Claims (1855-1982) - 386 F.2d 898 (Ct. Cl. 1967) November 9, 1967. John W. Kline, New Haven, Conn., attorney of record, for plaintiff. Tatem Manufacturing Company v. the United States.no. Cong. 4-58* Date: November 9, 1967 Citation: 386 F.2d 898 North Electric Company v. the United States and Electronic Specialty Co., Successor to Iron Fireman Manufacturing Company, Intervenor-defendant Date: November 9, 1967 Citation: 386 F.2d 845. Tatem Manufacturing Company v. the United States.no. Cong. 4-58* Date: November 9, 1967 Citation: 386 F.2d 898 Application of John M. Saari and William C. Wiley Date: November 24, 1967 Citation: 386 F.2d 909. Tatem Manufacturing Company v. The United States. No. Cong. 4-58, 386 F.2d 898 (Ct. Cl. 1967). tion of the subject-matter of the contract, or, following Robinson v. Davison,13 to cases where personal services could not be performed by reason of the death or incapacitating illness of the promisor. The fiction of the implied term may well have served as protection against this latent 9 At p. 455. 10 Shortly after Tatem v. Gamboa the. In an action to recover for the wrongful death of the plaintiff's intestate, an employee of a lumber manufacturing company, against his employer, and also against a railroad company, there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, with others, was engaged in "pinching" a carload of lumber along the railroad track to a point where lumber. Le plus grand marché automobile. Autos, camions et VUS Ford neufs et usagés à vendre. Lisez plus de 25 000 avis de propriétaires de voitures. Obtenez les faits avant d'acheter. 26 janv. 2024 · NO. 2:08-CV-208. DENNIS INMAN, Magistrate Judge Plaintiffs have sued the defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") under various legal theories regarding an allegedly defective recreational vehicle they purchased in 2006. Ford has filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 22). A hearing on the motion was held on January 26, 2024. Ford will be responsible for the costs of towing or otherwise transporting the recreational vehicle to the dealership it selects to make the inspect ion. After that inspection, the parties will pursue mediation, which shall be concluded within ninety days after the conclusion of the inspection by the Ford dealership. The parties will report to this court the results of that mediation by August. Law360 (October 26, 2024, 5:40 PM EDT) -- A Michigan federal jury found Wednesday that Ford Motor Co. breached a contract with Versata Software and misappropriated its trade secrets, awarding. 27 févr. 2024 · COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (February 20, 2024 – February 24, 2024) Rebuck v. Ford Motor Company, 2024 ONCA 121 (CanLII) [MacPherson, Hoy and Coroza JJ.A.] Counsel: I. Marks, D. Taub, J. Jamil, M. Peerless, and E. Assini, for the appellant H. M. DesBrisay, J. Lawrie, C. Beagan-Flood, and L. Dougan, for the respondents. 1 mai 2024 · May 1 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Detroit on Monday threw out a jury verdict ordering Ford Motor Co (F.N) to pay Versata Software Inc $104.6 million for breaching a 2004 licensing contract and. No. 12-2484 EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. Page 3 says are most effectively performed face to face. And Ford’s practice aligns with its preaching: It requires resale buyers to work in the same building as stampers so they can meet on a moment’s notice. This high level of interactivity and teamwork is why, in Ford’s judgment, “a. By reason of the foregoing, the United States of America is entitled to recover of and from the Panama Transport Company the sum of $123,364.15 for detention of the SS Mobilgas in addition to the sums heretofore paid for all damage by reason of the collision between the M/V Esso Balboa and the SS Mobilgas on September 19, 1944, with interest as. Full title: PANAMA TRANSPORT CO. v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. THE LIVINGSTON ROE Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York. Date published: Dec 20, 1951. United States v. Panama Transport Company. In the interlocutory decree herein, M/V Esso Balboa was held to be solely at fault in the collision on which. The Spanish contract between defendant Panama Transport Co. and Vazquez gave defendants no "rights". It imposed upon Vazquez no "obligations". It merely gave Vazquez a set of optional payments for his injury. That Spanish contract did not purport to preclude Vazquez from suing in United States courts the Panamanian company, much less Esso. Panama Transport Co., 174 F. Supp. 592 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. United States v. Panama Transport Co., 174 F. Supp. 592 – CourtListener.com. The Panama Transport Company, owner and operator of the motor ship Clio, also filed a petition for exoneration from or limitation of liability, and both it and the United States filed a claim in the proceedings started by the other. Read Komatsu Manufacturing Company v. United States, (1955), 131 F. Supp. 949, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database. 9 juin 2024 · Komatsu v. United States, Case No. 21-CV-1838 | Casetext Search + Citator Opinion Case details Case Details Full title: TOWAKI KOMATSU, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Date published: Jun 9, 2024 Citations Copy Citation.