Legal Opinion

In re Hibbard

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 9, 1928No. 337PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The French plan either was, or it was not, such that the counties were bound to use it; the same is true of Ripley’s estimate. The commissioner has found that the plan 'was practicable, and, though he has not expressly said so, his report is consistent only with the finding that it limits the counties in their damages. We start with that assumption. So far as Ripley’s estimate covered the repairs, we cannot see that it makes any difference that it was not in the form of an offer. It was equally available, and the counties might not reject it, any more than…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of RussiaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
  2. Demotte v. WhybrowCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
  3. Stephens v. Phœnix Bridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1905

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. The President MadisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
  2. O'DOnnell Transp. Co., Inc. v. City of New York. The Kosciusko. The Don. The Anna F. O'DOnnellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
  3. Independent Bulk Transport, Inc. v. The Vessel "Morania Abaco"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  4. State v. F. W. Fitch Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1945
  5. American Mail Line, Ltd. v. Skagit River Navigation & Trading Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API