The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More, HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge. It concluded that Resnick did not have available to him membership in the Union on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to the other members, and that both the Company and the Union knew of and attempted to solve the problem these circumstances created.
285 F.2d 757, In the Matter of William F. CALLAHAN, Movant., PER CURIAM. It further appears that the hearings are now in progress, that movant has filed request for similar relief in the district court, and that that court has not yet passed upon them, but a about to do so.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., Edward Bennett Williams, Vincent J. Fuller, Washington, D. C., and Burton L. Williams, Boston, Mass., for movant., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges., PER CURIAM., 2, An order will be entered denying the motion.
We will characterize such orders as broad, although in some instances the Board asserts otherwise.2, 2, In the Ochoa Fertilizer case it was charged that the respondent employer illegally maintained a closed or preferential shop agreement with the respondent union. 693, 85 L. Ed. 930;
283 F.2d 514, 60-2 USTC P 9807, Morris ZELTZERMAN et al., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges., 1, The decision of the Tax Court of the United States which the taxpayer here asks us to review rests upon that court's disposition of a disputed issue of fact.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., 3, Defendant Matthew J. Brown on August 28, 1956 executed in New York a document that purports to be a lease of the store by Rena Realty Corporation, the then owner of the premises, to Scott Jewelry Company of Stamford, Connecticut.
283 F.2d 571, Arlene M. DAMON, Respondent, Appellant, v.Cecil J. DAMON, Petitioner, Appellee. Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the lower court seeking discharge from imprisonment under the capias execution on the judgment for counsel fees. support of minor children;
, 8, The complaint there alleged that the defendant was one of a combination of corporations of similar name and allied interests engaged in the same business as the plaintiff, and constituted the largest and dominating factor in that trade throughout the United States; 12, 92 L. Ed. 20.
285 F.2d 718, Ralph F. AMIDON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Arthur S. FLEMMING, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendant, Appellee.Arthur S. FLEMMING, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendant, Appellant, v.Ralph F. AMIDON, Plaintiff, Appellee. Amidon protested.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. Marcell's counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege in more detail instances in which Wayside had acted in Vermont pursuant to and in execution of the contract in suit and on May 20 the court heard counsel for both parties on the various motions.
283 F.2d 147, LOCAL 201, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., WOODBURY, Chief Judge. The argument is well enough in its proper place.
283 F.2d 114, 60-2 USTC P 9775, Charles M. FAUCI, Respondent, Appellant, v.Edwin F. HANNON, Jr., Receiver, et al. United States v. Fauci, 1 Cir. Fauci v. Hannon (Denehy v; Appellant contends, (a) that the court should award him counsel fees out of the fund so that he may contest the sale.
283 F.2d 392, Martin J. MURPHY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.A/S SOBRAL et al., Nathan Greenberg, Boston, Mass., for appellant., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges., PER CURIAM., 1, The judgment of the District Court is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Ford.
282 F.2d 898, John D. DUNCAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Curtis M. PAYSON et al., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges., Roger A. Putnam, Portland, on brief for appellees., 1, The order of the District Court is affirmed.
739, 4 L. Ed. 2d 753. See Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co., supra, 362 U.S. at page 317, 80 S.Ct., 12, In Kletjian v. Mitchell the judgment of the district court will be affirmed, and in Mitchell v. Dooley Bros. 379, 90 L. Ed. 603, which had held window washers were employees under the act.
, 1958, 260 F.2d 590, cited by plaintiff, where the court remarked that an answer in this form was of no avail on a motion for summary judgment in the face of an affirmative affidavit. If it did not appear that a contract contained any such conditions, this might be a superfluous allegation.
282 F.2d 427, AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America for the Use of FRIGIDAIRE SALESCORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., PER CURIAM. 1594(a), and that it supplied the materials in reliance upon that bond.
, WOODBURY, Chief Judge. Wherefore the court reversed the Commissioner's determination of deficiency based on his view that the face amount of the trust certificates was not deductible from the net value of the real property which formed the corpus of the trust.
283 F.2d 251, SARACENO'S MARKET, INC., Alleged Bankrupt, Appellant, v.HAFFENREFFER CO., Inc., et al., Maurice H. Kramer, Boston, Mass., for appellant., Robert Robinson, Widett Kruger, Boston, Mass., for appellees., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit judges.
On the day in question Stauffer's gatekeeper, Forbes, possibly misled by a late blowing of Stauffer's 8 O'clock whistle, opened the gates and admitted a truck just before the train was due.1 The air was foggy, impairing visibility. See Nickerson v. Wheeler, 1875, 118 Mass. 295, 298.
