Legal Opinion
Presidio Mining Co. v. Overton
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 17, 1921No. 3253PublishedCited by 13 opinions
On rehearing.
1Per curiam
It should b.e stated that it appears that, after the filing of the amended bill and before the filing of the supplemental bill, an application was made to the court and to Judge Van Fleet for the appointment of a receiver and that after argument the court, by Judge Van Fleet, denied this motion and made an order refusing to dismiss the amended bill or to strike out parts thereof, and further that the application for the appointment of a receiver was denied without prejudice.
It also appears that after Judge Van Fleet hád made this order of denial of receiver, a supplemental complaint was filed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Blease v. GarlingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- United States v. Grass Creek Oil & Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- American Rotary Valve Co. v. MooreheadCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Johnson v. UmstedCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Klinicki v. LundgrenOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Garden City Feeder Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Aro Equipment Corporation v. Herring-Wissler Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. ImslandCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.