Legal Opinion
8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 725, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9688 Dave Van Hoomissen, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Xerox Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 6, 1974No. 74-1037PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
503 F.2d 1131
8 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 725, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9688
Dave VAN HOOMISSEN, Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,
v.
XEROX CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-1037.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 1974
Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 6, 1974.
Carlos G. Ynostroza, E.E.O.C., San Francisco, Cal., Beatrice Rosenberg, Charles L. Reischel, James P. Scanlan, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor-appellant.
Richard Haas of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before DUNIWAY,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Greenwood v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. GoldwynCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America Et Al.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975