Legal Opinion
Malman v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 29, 1953No. 22431_1PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Jurisdiction.
In support of its position that the district court had no jurisdiction, defendant advances several arguments. We think that ■ these arguments lack merit, because plaintiff, in effect, sues as Trimore’s assignee by “operation of law,” 2 and because the court clearly has jurisdiction of a suit by Trimore under its contract with the United States.
We think the earlier total assignment by Trimore to Concord Factors raises no jurisdictional questions. In this connection, the government cites Sherwood v. United States, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058. A…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. Munsey Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Wallace v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Michael Ikelionwu v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Donald Knight and Foster Pepper & Shefelman, a Law Partnership, Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P. C. v. United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- In the Matter of Brewster-Raymond Company, Bankrupt. United States of America v. Ralph H. Coleman, Trustee in BankruptcyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.