Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. David L. Rose, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. John W. Douglas, Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D.C., and Louis G. Davidson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, Chicago, Ill., with whom William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Judges
  • Charles Fahy
  • John Anthony Danaher
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. David L. Rose, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. John W. Douglas, Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D.C., and Louis G. Davidson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, Chicago, Ill., with whom William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Judges
  • Charles Fahy
  • John Anthony Danaher
See more information ...
Smart Summary

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. CAPITAL AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

This case returns here following our remand to the District Court on the issue of damages. The District Court has now redetermined damages fixing the amount at $1,080,000, plus certain incidental factors of $6050. In our view the criteria applied by the District Court to reach its conclusions were permissible standards and we see no adequate basis for disturbing its conclusions.

United States v. State of Maryland, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 322 F.2d 1009 (1963).

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

UNITED STATES v. CAPITAL AIRLINES, INC
(Mar 11, 1965)