Loading…

Vetere v. Allen — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Vetere v. Allen

15 L. Ed. 2d 71 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 11, 1965

Full text

Vetere v. Allen, Commissioner of Education of New York

Ct. App. N. Y. Cer-tiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 8962070

Citations

15 L. Ed. 2d 71
382 U.S. 825
86 S. Ct. 60
1965 U.S. LEXIS 655

Cited by

TXCO Resources, Inc. v. Peregrine Petroleum, L.L.C. (In re TXCO Resources, Inc.)
W.D. Texas · Jul 26, 2012
Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP
S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 2011
Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United States
Federal Circuit · Sep 9, 2005
United States v. City of Yonkers
Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1996
United States v. William L. Hart
Sixth Circuit · Jan 3, 1996
W.C. Phillips and Mary Phillips, D/B/A Ambusher, Inc. v. Claude Frey, Jr., Claude Frey, Jr., Gary Arnold, and Buck-Pro, Inc.
Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1994
United States v. Farmer
W.D. Virginia · Jan 25, 1993
United States v. Newton Alfred Winn
Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 1991
Gonzales v. Zamora

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist. · May 24, 1990

Bernice Barbour Raiford v. Buslease, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Thomas F. Morris, Morgan B. Raiford v. Buslease, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Thomas F. Morris

Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1987

Raiford v. Buslease, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1987

J.C. Kinley Co. v. Haynie Wire Line Service, Inc.

Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston) · Nov 27, 1985

Parentheticals

owner of a trade secret must do something to protect himself or the secret will be lost by its disclosure
W.C. Phillips and Mary Phillips, D/B/A Ambusher, Inc. v. Claude Frey, Jr., Claude Frey, Jr., Gary Arnold, and Buck-Pro, Inc.
“It is also the rule that where [collateral estoppel] is asserted, the earlier determination must have been of a question of fact essential to the earlier judgment.”
Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United States
court will imply provision in contract when necessary to carry intention of parties, as evinced by whole contract, into effect
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Novamont Corp.