MUTUAL BENEFIT, HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSN.
v.
BOWMAN

U.S. | 1938-05-31
No. 1004
304 U.S. 549 Supreme Court of the United States (1938) Caution
Also reported at: 304 U.S. 556
Cited by 3 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to the question of the right of respondent to recover under the law of New Mexico. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for determination of thp question presented. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, ante, p. 64; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, ante, p. 261; Rosenthal v. New York Life Ins. Co., ante, p. 263.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1940)
    …ision in the Tompkins case manifestly tended to produce a uniformity in result in that particular situation, whether action on the Pennsylvania tort were brought in a New York state court or New York federal court. In Mutual Benefit Ass’n v. Bowman, 304 U.S. 549, 58 S.Ct. 1056, 1057, 82 L.Ed. 1521, suit was brought in the federal court in Nebraska on a contract of insurance made in New Mexico. The lower court decided a question of interpretation as a matter of “general law”. In a brief per curiam opinion t…
  • Toole Cnty. Irr. Dist. v. Moody, 125 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1942)
    …. v. Jackson, 304 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 871, 82 L.Ed. 1329; Rosenthal v. New York Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 263, 58 S.Ct. 874, 82 L.Ed. 1330; Hudson v. Moonier, 304 U.S. 397, 58 S.Ct. 954, 82 L.Ed. 1422; Mutual Benefit, Health & Accident Ass’n v. Bowman, 304 U.S. 549, 58 S.Ct. 1056, 82 L.Ed. 1521; Wichita Royalty Co. v. City National Bank, 306 U.S. 103, 59 S.Ct. 420, 83 L.Ed. 515; City of Texarkana v. Arkansas, Louisiana Gas Co., 306 U.S. 188, 620, 59 S.Ct. 448, 83 L.Ed. 598; Cities Service Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U.…
  • Ackert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 115 F.2d 455 (4th Cir. 1940)
    …re erroneous, or involve some minor matter beyond the jurisdiction ; although in the latter respect, they may be open to collateral attack. Cf. the decisions in the case of the Illinois Bell Telephone Company as follows: Berman v. Illinois Bell Co., 304 U.S. 549, 58 S.Ct. 1049, 82 L.Ed. 1521; Illinois Bell Co. v. Slattery, 7 Cir., 98 F. 2d 930 and 102 F. 2d 58. We conclude that Congress provided in Chapter XV of the Bankruptcy Act a new and special procedure, complete in itself, and limited to a particular…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw