Legal Opinion

In re Imperial Irr. Dist

District Court, S.D. California

Decided February 24, 1941No. 1542PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JENNEY, District Judge.

Findings Under the New Rules.

In its order of December 26, 1940, calling for briefs and arguments on the submitted findings of fact, conclusions of law, form of interlocutory decree, and objections and amendments thereto, the court stated: “Counsel should bear in mind that the court has expressed itself in favor of approving the proposed Plan of Composition. Therefore, objections should be directed to form rather than to legal theory.”

Counsel for proponents feel that objections and amendments have been submitted which disregard this admonition of the court. They contend…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1941

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In the Matter of the Estate of Van Buren Hooper, Sr., Deceased v. Government of the Virgin Islands, ACourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  2. Makah Indian Tribe v. MooreDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1950
  3. Suskin v. NixonDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1969
  4. United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  5. Fletcher v. MapesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API