UNITED STATES

v.

THOMAS

Citator

Cited By

• Landsman v. United States, 205 F.2d 18 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
  …o effectuate the beneficial purposes that Congress had in mind.” 334 U.S. at page 610, 68 S.Ct. at page 1288. See also Thomas v. United States, 6 Cir., 1952, 189 F. 2d 494, cer-tiorari denied 342 U.S. 850, 72 S.Ct. 78, 96 L.Ed. 641, rehearing denied 343 U.S. 932, 72 S.Ct. 756, 96 L.Ed. 1341. . We note that workmen’s compensation, statutes frequently provide that tardy claims may be accepted where “good-cause” is shown or where there was “mistake” or similar excuse. Numerous cases-arising under such legisla…
• South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (U.S. 2010)
  …ven participated as parties in disputes between States, such as the one before us now, where the States were seeking equitable apportionment of water resources. See, e. g., Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 608, n. 1 (1988); Texas v. New Mexico, 343 U. S. 932 (1952); New Jersey v. City of New York, 279 U. S. 823 (1929) (per curiam). It is, thus, not a novel proposition to accord party status to a citizen in an original action between States. This Court likewise has granted leave, under appropriate cir…
• Texas v. New Mexico, 344 U.S. 906 (U.S. 1952)
  …ected to hold hearings, take such evidence as may be necessary and, with all convenient speed, to submit a report with recommendations relative to the disposition of the questions raised by the pleadings. The order entered herein on April 28, 1952, 343 U. S. 932, left open the question of the indispensability of the United States as a party for decision after evidence. In hearing the evidence, the master is directed, so far as is practicable, to hear first evidence bearing on the indispensability of the Uni…