Nix v. Hedden status of the cucumber, squash, pea, and bean. "Nix" has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. ("Sonn v. Maggone," ; "Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger," ; and "Cadwalader v. Zeh," ). Additionally, in "JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc.," 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to "Nix" aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case: In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited "Nix" as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the
Comrs of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc with the freezing order, there could not be said to have arisen any assumption of responsibility on "Hedley Byrne" grounds. Applying then the "Caparo" test, it was held to not be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The bank was therefore not required to reimburse Customs and Excise for the dissipated money. Comrs of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2006] UKHL 28 is a leading English tort law case concerning negligent misstatement and pure economic loss. Customs and Excise needed to freeze the bank account of