Legal Opinion
United States v. California Eastern Line, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided February 16, 1956No. 11448PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
The controversy here presented arose under the Renegotiation Act, as amended.1 21 The Tax Court by its de*755cisión and order of February 26, 1952, ruled that there was presented no renegotiable contract within § 403(c) (1). See 1952, 17 T.C. 1325. When the Government filed its petition for review, we were first confronted with a jurisdictional question because of lack of the proper parties. See 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 204 F.2d 398. When next before us, we dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, for reasons stated in 1954, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 211…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- MacAuley v. Waterman Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. GraysonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Compania Espanola De Navegacion Maritima, SA v. the NavemarSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
- Ex Parte State of New York, No. 2Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boeing Airplane Company v. Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board, Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board v. Boeing Airplane Company, Boeing Airplane Company, Cross-Appellant v. Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
- Boeing Airplane Co. v. CoggeshallCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
- United States v. California Eastern Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956