Clear

184 search results for query *


Summary: 5 F. Supp. Section 60b of the same act, as amended by Act June 25, 1910, § 11 (11 USCA § 96 (b), is as follows: "If a bankrupt shall have procured or suffered a judgment to be entered against him in favor of any person or have made a transfer of any of his property, and if, at the time of the transfer, or of the entry of the judgment, or of the recording or registering of the transfer if by law recording or registering thereof is required, and being within four months before the filing of the pe......read more.


Summary: 30 F. Supp. Plaintiff, a resident of Missouri, seeks to recover from defendant, trustee in bankruptcy of Charles Cassell, Bankrupt, resident of the State of Illinois, as trust funds, moneys in the estate, to reimburse her, as she alleges, for losses accruing because of the failure of the bankrupt as a testamentary trustee, to discharge certain legacies secured by real estate in which she holds a remainder. Plaintiff alleges that the lands sold were reasonably worth in 1916 more than twice the am......read more.


Summary: 25 F. Supp. E. F. Lowenstein, of Danville, Ill., and C. E. Feirich, of Carbondale, Ill., for defendant. To support his contention he relies upon the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. Prior to the decision in the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, the law of negligence and of contributory negligence was uniformly held by the federal courts to be in the field of general law wherein the federal court......read more.


Summary: 252 F. Supp. Defendant filed her motion to dismiss the complaint in intervention, alleging: (1) that the complaint and the allegations thereof are irrelevant and immaterial to plaintiff's cause of action; (2) that the complaint in intervention attempts to assert a right of action against the defendant, arising out of an accident alleged in plaintiff's original complaint; (3) that the complaint on its face shows that plaintiff is entitled to hospital and medical care and treatment from the United......read more.


Summary: 71 F. Supp. Defendant contends that all plaintiffs are excluded from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by virtue of Section 13(b) (1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(b) (1), which provides that the Act shall not apply to "any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service," pursuant to Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. § 304(a) (1), (2) and (3), which provides that the Interstate Commerce......read more.


Summary: 387 F. Supp. United States v. Scolnick, 392 F.2d 320 (3rd Cir. 2d 1389; United States v. Addonzio, 313 F. Supp. See also United States v. Keen, 508 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1974), and United States v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 278 F. Supp. 241 (W.D.Pa.1967); United States v. Alexander, 218 F. Supp.


Summary: 1 F.2d 412 (1924) RUSSELL v. CENTRAL LABOR UNION et al. The question thus presented is whether or not a voluntary association, suable in the federal court, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United Mine Workers of America et al. v. Coronado Coal Co. et al., 259 U.S. 344, 42 Sup. In the case of United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., supra, the Supreme Court distinctly and definitely held that such voluntary organizations are suable in the fed......read more.


Summary: 395 F. Supp. Certificates which are in substantial conformity *806 with the requirements of the statute provide adequate assurance of the authenticity of the documents certified, In re Neely, 103 F. 626 (C.C.N. Y.1900); In re Lo Dolce, 106 F. Supp. Documents which are otherwise properly certified are admissible at an extradition hearing even though they would not be admissible at a criminal trial, In re Lo Dolce, supra; Caputo v. Kelly, 19 F. Supp. The Court has previously ruled that kidnapping ......read more.


Summary: 10 F. Supp. Thus it was held in Re Brown (D. C.) 284 F. 899, that one owning numerous farms which he leased to others on the so-called "co-operative plan," and engaging in various other activities, although spending far the largest part of his time in looking after his farms, is not a farmer, nor even a partner in the farming business; and in Re Matson (D. C.) 123 F. 743, that a mere owner of a farm leased to another is not engaged chiefly in farming, even though leased on shares. Another case f......read more.


Published Opinion | Federal District, Federal, | District Court Ed Illinois | cited by: 1 Primary Sources | citing: 5
Summary: 162 F. Supp. * * * "(7) Upon a defendant of any class referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) of this subdivision of this rule, it is also sufficient if the summons and complaint are served in the manner prescribed by any statute of the United States or in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the service is made for the service of summons or other like process upon any such defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of that state." Rule 4(d) (7) specifical......read more.


Summary: 133 F. Supp. 580 (1955) THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. BLOCK DRUG CO., Amm-i-dent, Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co., and Chester J. Henschel, Defendants. The plaintiff, The University of Illinois Foundation, has filed a suit against F. W. Woolworth Co., Amm-i-dent, Inc., and Chester J. Henschel, alleging that the defendants have infringed upon their two patents for "ammoniated" dentifrices. Sarnes v. Morley, D.C., 56 F. Supp. 735; Kislyn Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.C., 43 ......read more.


Summary: 463 F. Supp. 1477 (1941); Ryan v. Napier, 252 F. Supp. Insurance Company of North America v. Royal Indemnity Co., 429 F.2d 1014 (6th Cir. 1960); Laviana v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 224 F. Supp. 15, 234 S.E.2d 206 (1977) and Ohio Farmers Insurance v. Landfried, 348 F. Supp.


Summary: 348 F. Supp. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's jury demand alleges that plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial; that this is an action to review the administrative decision of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which was rendered in accordance with the terms of the "Disputes" clause of the contract; that Court consideration is confined to a review of the administrative record, without the introduction *232 of new or additional evidence; that the Court in reaching its ......read more.


Summary: 45 F. Supp. 345; Frazier v. Hines, D.C., 260 F. 874; Saldibar v. Heiland Research Corp., D.C. 32 F. Supp. Inasmuch, says defendant, as I must, in determining whether there are grounds for removal, give weight, not only to the averments of the petition for removal but also to all parts of the record, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Chappell, D.C.S.D.Okl.1913, 206 F. 688, 694; Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co., D.C.E.D.Ark.1913, 206 F. 528, 529; Gruetter v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegr......read more.


Summary: 231 F. Supp. The complaint then alleges that Mer/29 was expressly represented by the defendant as suitable for human consumption and reasonably fit for the purpose intended; that, in addition, there was an implied warranty that the drug so manufactured, sold and put upon the market by the defendant was reasonably fit for the purpose intended and was not a substance which would cause injury to persons consuming same under the direction of a physician; that the plaintiff relied upon the warranties......read more.


Summary: 406 F. Supp. This interpretation of § 858(a) is unfavorable to petitioner since under the statute applicable to federal prisoners he is not eligible for parole until he has served fourteen years,[2] while pursuant to Army regulations he would be eligible for parole after serving ten years,[3] 18 U.S.C. § 4202; United States Army Regulations, AR 190-26, Para. 1-4a(2). 152, 306 F.2d 759 (D.C.Cir.1962); O'Callahan v. Attorney General of the United States, 230 F. Supp.


Summary: 424 F. Supp. Railway Passenger & Freight Conductors' Mutual Aid & Benefit Ass'n v. Loomis, 142 Ill. 560, 567-569, 32 N.E. 424, 426 (1892). This concept has been given independent legal force by United States v. Mitchell, 74 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. First-Mechanics Nat'l Bank of Trenton v. Commissioner, 117 F.2d 127, 132 A.L.R. 1459 (3d Cir.


Summary: 174 F. Supp. Joseph F. Diver, Terre Haute, Ind., for Ohio Oil Co. *333 John M. Cline left surviving him his widow, Fern Cline, now Coyle, Pearl McFarland, his mother, Dallas Cline, Persaw Cline, William Cline, Orville Cline, Ruby Urbansky, and Alice Widdows White, all brothers and sisters, and Cheryl Cline, a minor daughter of a pre-deceased brother, Virgil, as his only heirs-at-law. A suit by her against John M. Cline's estate, resisted by the Illinois administrators, the widow and heirs, was a......read more.




Summary: 391 F. Supp. In order to recover on a § 1983 claim, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show intentional conduct by one acting under color of state law which subjected him to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, Kish v. County of Milwaukee, 441 F.2d 901, 904 (7th Cir. Thus, a plaintiff must show more than that he has suffered an intentional tort at the hands of a defendant who was acting under color of state law; ......read more.