Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

202 F.2d 190

Docket No. 11311.

Hart v. Williams

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 12, 1952.

Decided Nov. 28, 1952.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-11-28

3 counsel of record

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 79 (Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935) · 16 U.S.C. § 791 · 16 U.S.C. § 797 (§ 4 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 803 (§ 10 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 807 (§ 14 of the Federal Power Act of 1920)

Relies on United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-11-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1999 · most notably Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (1954), Richard A. Williams and Alfred S. Trask v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, Leonard N. Bebchick and Daniel W. Gottlieb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1969)

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

11019521960197019801990decided

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 →

¶1Barrington D. Parker and George A. Parker, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellant.

¶2John H. Wilson, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellees Percy B. Williams and Louise E. Williams.

¶3John J. Carmody and Jo V. Morgan, Jr., Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellee American Building Association.

¶4Before CLARK, PROCTOR and BAZE-LON, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6After a hearing in appellant’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the court below overruled his objections to an order of reference to the aúditor, and exceptions to the auditor’s report. Appellant appeals from this action and the entry of judgment against him.

¶7The objections to the reference are without merit. Moreover, the reference was made pursuant to- the agreement of all counsel and the objections were not made until after the auditor had found the issues in favor of the appellees. And since the record amply supports the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s exceptions to the report, the judgment below must be Affirmed.

/202/f2d/190 · .json · Public domain