Legal Opinion

Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 22, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Our term having expired since the mandate went down, we have no power to recall it. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co., 150 U.S. 82, 14 S.Ct. 22, 37 L.Ed. 1007; Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289; Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione, 2 Cir., 239 F. 1023; Dobson v. United States, 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 288. Rule 6(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, does not apply to Circuit Courts of Appeals.

We wish, however, to make plain that there are several questions which we are not deciding. First, we do not decide that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scotten v. LittlefieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Dobson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  4. Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca Di NavigazioneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Eva Hines v. Royal Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1958
  3. Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  4. Sweet v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
  5. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API