§
In the Matter of A.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Weems v. United States

    217 U.S. 349 (1910)   Cited 1,191 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the forfeiture rule "is not a rigid one" and expressing "less reluctance to act under it when rights are asserted which are of such high character as to find expression and sanction in the Constitution or Bill of Rights"

  2. Trade Comm'n v. Staley Co.

    324 U.S. 746 (1945)   Cited 95 times
    Rejecting defendant's attempted meeting competition defense

  3. Hackfeld Co. v. United States

    197 U.S. 442 (1905)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that factual stipulations by parties are binding on the court

  4. Wilson Co. v. United States, (1936)

    15 F. Supp. 332 (Fed. Cl. 1936)   Cited 5 times

    No. H-227. January 6, 1936. Suit by Wilson Co., Inc., against the United States. Petition dismissed. This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence adduced, makes the following special findings of fact: 1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized November 30, 1925, under the laws of the state of Delaware. 2. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the 26th day of August, 1924, appointed Julius M. Mayer, Robert Lee Morrell, and Thomas

  5. Claims of Di Donato v. Rosenberg

    230 App. Div. 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)   Cited 4 times
    In DiDonato v. Rosenberg (230 App. Div. 538) Judge HINMAN said (p. 542): "We have never held that newly-discovered evidence might not afford a basis of relief, where there was sufficient mistake of fact, or fraud, or imposition upon a client or the court, due to excusable neglect and where due diligence was exercised.

  6. Humphries v. Shapiro

    187 App. Div. 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1919)   Cited 12 times

    April 4, 1919. Abraham Rosenstein of counsel [ Feltenstein Rosenstein, attorneys], for the appellants. Louis S. Posner of counsel [ Slensby Wolff, attorneys], for the respondents. CLARKE, P.J.: This action was commenced in October, 1917. The defendants appeared by Messrs. Slensby Wolff as their attorneys and issue was joined in December, 1917, by the service of answers of each of the defendants by the same attorneys. The action was brought to recover over $300,000 for the breach of a contract on

  7. Haese v. Heitzeg

    159 Cal. 569 (Cal. 1911)   Cited 14 times

    Sac. No. 1813. March 16, 1911. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County granting a new trial. W.B. Wallace, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. G.W. Zartman, for Appellant. C.L. Russell, for Respondent. SLOSS, J. After judgment in favor of the plaintiff the court below granted the motion of defendant Heitzeg for a new trial. From the order granting this motion the plaintiff now appeals. The action was one to quiet title to a quarter section of land in Tulare

  8. Sheehan v. Levy

    215 S.W. 229 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)   Cited 6 times
    In Levy v. Sheehan, 3 Wn. 420, 28 P. 748, we held that, although the better practice would have been to make a formal motion to correct the agreed statement of facts, an informal action was equivalent to such a motion and should be allowed without further proofs.

  9. Moffitt v. Jordan

    127 Cal. 628 (Cal. 1900)   Cited 12 times

    S.F. No. 1345. February 26, 1900. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Edward A. Belcher, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. Joseph M. Wood, Appellant in pro. per. J.C. Bates, for Respondent. COOPER, C. This is an appeal from a final judgment, and the sole question sought to be reviewed here is an order of the lower court refusing to relieve the appellant from a written stipulation. It appears that in May, 1897, the plaintiff had brought two