Publicker v. Shallcross
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
The first time this case came before us, counsel for appellant-respondent demurred to and so technically admitted the truth of the facts alleged by petitionerappellees. We understood that he did so purely for the purpose of testing the law. We felt that the cause might be more justly decided if all the facts were known, and remanded it to the District Court with direction to file an answer and proceed to hearing on the merits, Publicker v. Shall-cross, 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 596, 597. Appellant’s new counsel evidently did not share our feeling. His answer again in substance…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bronson v. SchultenSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Ex Parte Sibbald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Marshall v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Phillips v. NegleySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Shammas v. ShammasSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- West Virginia Oil & Gas Co., Inc. v. George E. Breece Lumber Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
- Griffith v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Sylvia Averbach v. Rival Manufacturing CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.