Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

190 F.2d 137

Docket No. 13499.

Scott v. United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 25, 1951.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-06-25

3 counsel of record

Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. · Steigleder v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1969), MacHinery Corporation of America v. Gullfiber Ab, Gullfiber International and Marvin Schneider (1985)

76 federal appellate ·

3701951196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dale H. McKibben, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.

¶2Fred W. Smith, Roger P. Marquis, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Wash-

¶3ington, D. C., A. Devitt Vanech, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph E. Brown, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for appellee.

¶4Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and STRUM, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The same questions here involved were determined between the same parties with respect to other lands in Scott v. United States, 5 Cir., 190 F.2d 134. Upon the authority of that case the judgment here appealed from is affirmed.

/190/f2d/137 · .json · Public domain