American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
HULBERT, District Judge.
Philip E. Mannheim, acting for himself and other owners of Manhattan 4% Second Mortgage Bonds, was one of only two parties who prosecuted appeals from any of the decrees or orders entered in connection with the carrying out of the InterboroughManhattan unification plan. He appealed from nine such orders and decrees which were affirmed on August 12, 1941 (American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 2 Cir., 122 F.2d 454) and his petition for certiorari was denied on Feb. 2, 1942, Mannheim v. Merle-Smith, 315 U.S. 801, 62 S.Ct. 625, 626, 86 L.Ed.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hovey v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Evans v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hobson v. HansenDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1968
- Brown v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1977
- United States v. Anthony P. Perry v. Tryllous Hossler, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- in Re Lumbermens Mutual Casualty CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 2006