Citation network
Baltimore Contractors, Inc. Vs. Bodinger
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 10, 1955
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 176 (1955) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSearch
-
U.S. 176 (1955) Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSearch
-
Pp. 348 U. S. 180 -185. (c) Morgantown v. RoyalSearch
-
Ins. Co., 337 U. S. 254 , followed. Enelow v. NewSearch
-
Ettelson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
and Shanferoke Corp. v. WestchesterSearch
-
Circuit. 216 F.2d 192. On respondent's motion, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, citing City of Morgantown v. RoyalSearch
-
Page 348 U. S. 178 In view of the conflict between the decision below and Hudson Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
It was as surely an interlocutory order as the District Court's order in Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. WestchesterSearch
-
extension or reduction of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, occurs in the federal system. Shanferoke Corp. v. WestchesterSearch
-
and its predecessors. The appealability of routine interlocutory injunctive orders raised few questions. See George v. VictorSearch
-
of proceedings, in distinction to injunctions, were appealed that the issue of jurisdiction became sharp. In Enelow v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of those courts when sitting as courts of law and when sitting as courts of equity.' Per Van Devanter, J., in Griesa v. MutualSearch
-
adoption of the one form of action by the Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 2, we reiterated this ruling in a like case. Ettelson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
appealability from an injunction prohibiting proceedings in another court. This distinction was applied in Morgantown v. RoyalSearch
-
For the reasons stated in Enelow v. NewSearch
-
See Catlin v. UnitedSearch
-
Final Judgment as a Basis for Appeal, 41 Yale L.J. 539, 540-548, 551. Section 22 was rigorously enforced. Rutherford v. FisherSearch
-
Cranch 51. Fragmentary appeals were denounced. Canter v. AmericanSearch
-
U. S. 32 , 252 U. S. 36 , has called for determinations of the characteristics of finality. Stack v. BoyleSearch
-
Roberts v. DistrictSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. CompaniaSearch
-
Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
Cogen v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 278 U. S. 221 . Cf. Bandini Petroleum Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
Radio Station WOW v. JohnsonSearch
-
Montgomery Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. LedbetterSearch
-
Cobbledick v. UnitedSearch
-
Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. WestchesterSearch
-
The ruling followed Enelow v. NewSearch
-
York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379 . Wilko v. SwanSearch
-
in 1891. No change was intended by that omission. Schoenamsgruber v. HamburgSearch
-
Compare Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 54(b), and see Dickinson v. PetroleumSearch
-
Cf. Schoenamsgruber v. HamburgSearch
-
makes all stay orders appealable that have the substantial effect of interlocutory injunction orders. Ettelson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSearch
-
Morgantown v. RoyalSearch
-
Enelow v. NewSearch
-
City of Morgantown v. RoyalSearch
-
and Hudson Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Shanferoke Corp. v. WestchesterSearch
-
See George v. VictorSearch
-
In Enelow v. NewSearch
-
Griesa v. MutualSearch
-
Rutherford v. FisherSearch
-
Canter v. AmericanSearch
-
Cf. Bandini Petroleum Co. v. SuperiorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial