PITCHFORD

v.

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Citator

Cited By

• Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
  …175 (1988); R.A.P. v. B.J.P., 428 N.W. 2d 103 (Minn.App.1988); Doe v. Roe, 218 Cal.App.3d 1538, 267 Cal.Rptr. 564 (Cal. 1st Dist.1990); Longv. Adams, 175 Ga.App. 538, 333 S.E. 2d 852 (Ga.App.1985); Duke v. Housen, 589 P. 2d 334 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 132, 62 L.Ed.2d 86 (1979). . We are aware of the footnote in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1993), receded from on other grounds, Wells v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., 659 So. 2d 249, 20 FLW S278 (Fla.1995),…
• United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1985)
  …the Motion Among the factors the district court must consider is “the timeliness of the motion” to reopen. Thetford, 676 F. 2d at 182; see also Larson, 596 F. 2d at 778; United States v. Phillips, 575 F. 2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 131, 62 L.Ed.2d 85 (1979). After the government presented its rebuttal witnesses on Friday, May 18, the government rested its case. At that time, appellant made no definite indication that he wished to testify and no request was made of…
• Jerome Jablon, M.D. v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …. Jablon’s argument is attractive. The cases he cites have allowed estoppel to be employed against the government, despite a longstanding tradition against estopping the government.6 See Morris v. Andrus, 593 F. 2d 851 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 133, 62 L.Ed.2d 86 (1979) (held, although estoppel sometimes can be available against the government, there was no such misrepresentation as to entitle plaintiff to government land); United States v. Wharton, 514 F. 2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975)…

  ← 1 / 2 →