Legal Opinion
Ludlow Corporation v. DeSmedt
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 25, 1966PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RYAN, Chief Judge.
Petitioners Ludlow Corporation and the Federal Maritime Commission seek, pursuant to § 29 of the Shipping Act of 1916, 46 U.S.C. § 828, to enforce obedience to certain subpoenas issued by the Commission. Each petitioner by order to show cause moved to intervene in support of the other’s application. An order has been entered permitting Ludlow to intervene and the Commission has withdrawn its motion.
Ludlow, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in that state, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of jute products. Respondents are officers…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Far East Conference v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Kerr Steamship Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Minas De Artemisa, S. A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain-Pont-A-MoussonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- In the Matter of an Application to Enforce an Administrative Subpoena of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Naji Robert NahasCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Calcutta East Coast of India and East pakistan/u.s.a. Conference v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Federal Maritime Commission v. DeSmedtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Federal Maritime Commission v. New York Terminal ConferenceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.