Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 13, 1932PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
These motions are granted to the extent here indicated:
A (1) The counsel for the moving parties may present to me for signature an order providing for the consolidation of the cause of American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Manhattan Railway Company, Intervener, equity No. 70 — 364, with this cause of Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Company, equity No. 71 — 153, under the following short caption: “In the matter of the InterboroughManhattan Receivership Proceedings.”(2) After the order of consolidation thus granted is signed and filed,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Ball v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Craig v. HechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- McDowell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Willcox v. GoessDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1936
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1932
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.