Legal Opinion
Continental Can Company, Inc. v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided February 20, 1970No. 102-64PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Saul Richard Gamer with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a) [since September 1, 1969, Rule 134(h)]. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on February 27, 1969. Plaintiff filed no exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact but did except to his opinion and recommended conclusion of law. Defendant requested adoption of the findings of fact and the recommended conclusion of law. The case has been submitted to the court on the…
3Cases cited11 opinions
- Malat v. RiddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- American Can Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Can CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- United States v. American Can Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1949
- Recordak Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Ryan Distributing Corporation v. CaleyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by7 opinions
- Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Honeywell, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- International Shoe MacHine Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1974
- International Shoe MacHine Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1973
- Tarasi v. Pittsburgh National Bank, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.