MORSE DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO.

v.

THE PRESIDENT ARTHUR

Citator

Cited By

• Am. Power & Light Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 141 F.2d 606 (1st Cir. 1944)
  …ission now under review are invalid on the ground that the federal government has no power, through any agency, to decree the dissolution of a state-created corporation. Lillard v. Lonergan, 10 Cir., 1934, 72 F. 2d 865, 870, certiorari denied, 1934, 293 U.S. 615, 55 S.Ct. 147, 79 L.Ed. 704. But the orders in question do not purport of their own force to dissolve the petitioners. In effect, the orders require petitioners to submit plans for complete liquidation, the realization of which will be accomplished…
• R. v. McGINNIS Theatres & PAY T. V., Inc., 386 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1967)
  …ated to the substitution of a successor corporation for a dissolved corporation and the Court declined to act without a clarification of an Oklahoma decision in the light of Oklahoma statutes. Lillard v. Lonergan, 10 Cir., 72 F. 2d 865, cert. denied 293 U.S. 615, 55 S.Ct. 147, 79 L.Ed. 704, was concerned with conflicting state and federal jurisdiction over the appointment of receivers for a Kansas corporation. Decisions like Watts v. Liberty Royalties Corp., 10 Cir., 106 F. 2d 941, which apply state laws no…
• United States ex rel. Roberts v. W. PAC. R. Co., 190 F.2d 243 (9th Cir. 1951)
  …d authorizations. Our conclusion to this effect is supported by the authority of Olson v. Mellon, D.C. W.D.Pa., 4 F.Supp. 947, the opinion in which was adopted and affirmed in U. S. ex rel. Knight v. Mellon, 3 Cir., 71 F. 2d 1021, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 615, 55 S.Ct. 147, 79 L.Ed. 704. In that case the argument had been made that the type of transactions to which R.S. § 3490 applied, had been enlarged by a later amendment of § 5438 as incorporated in § 35 of the 1910 Penal [*248] Code. The court pointe…