Supreme Court of the United States, 1940

McCullough v. Cosgrave

McCullough v. Cosgrave
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 1, 1940
309 U.S. 634 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Ford W. Harris for petitioners., Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond for respondent.

McCullough v. Cosgrave

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is granted, and the *635return to the order to show cause is treated as an answer to the petition. The District Judge is directed to vacate the order dated January 15, 1940, in the cases of Kammerer Corporation and Baash-Ross Tool Company v. Ira J. McCullough et al., and Ira J. McCullough v. Baash-Ross Tool Company and Kammerer Corporation, referring these cases to a Master for trial. It is further ordered that the trial of these cases be had by the District Court in due course without postponement of the trial to that of other cases not entitled to a preference, but with such arrangement as to the particular Judge who shall conduct the trial as may be consistent with the court’s convenience." Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 (b); Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Co. v. James, 272 U. S. 701.

Mr. Ford W. Harris for petitioners. Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond for respondent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.