Legal Opinion
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 19, 1962No. 17517PublishedCited by 508 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
In this mandamus proceeding, CMAX, Inc., seeks to vacate a district court order postponing the trial of petitioner’s action against Drewry Photocolor Corporation.
CMAX is an air freight forwarder (indirect air carrier) operating under Civil Aeronautics Board authority and regulations.1 On December 15, 1959, it instituted an action against Drewry in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division. It was alleged in the complaint that between January, 1955 and February, 1957, CMAX had received certain shipments from Drewry, that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Central Iron & Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Cmax, Inc., Also D. B. A. City Messenger of Hollywood and City Messenger Air Express v. Drewry Photocolor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by508 opinions
- Cmax, Inc. v. HallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Pet Milk Company v. Willis W. Ritter, Carnation Company v. Willis W. Ritter, Continental Baking Company v. Willis W. RitterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- Filtrol Corporation and Texaco, Inc. v. The Honorable Robert J. Kelleher, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Adkins v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Robbins Flooring, Inc. v. Federal Floors, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
503 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.