EX PARTE LA PRADE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause in a petition for prohibition and mandamus against federal judges in Arizona and California, staying all proceedings in the lower court pending the Court's determination of whether to grant leave to file the petition.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
A rule is directed to issue to the Hon. Curtis D. Wilbur, Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to the Hon. Fred C. Jacobs, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, and to the Hon. Adolphus F. St. Sure, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, sitting as a specially constituted District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, directing them to show cause, by printed return on or before Monday, April 10 next, why leave to file the petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus should not be granted in the above-entitled matter as prayed. The cause is assigned for argument on Monday, April 17 next; briefs for the parties shall be filed on or before the day of the argument. It is further ordered that all proceedings against the above-named petitioner in the specially constituted District Court be; and they are hereby, stayed; and that the respondents be, and they are hereby, directed to continue the term of the said District Court pending final determination of this application in this Court.
*
For decisions on applications for certiorari, see post, pp. 713, 723.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1941)…o., 311 U. S. 570, and Railroad Commission v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 311 U. S. 578. Had a timely appeal been taken to the circuit court of appeals the decree below could have been reviewed there, though rendered by three judges. Healy v. Ratta, 289 U. S. 701; 67 F. 2d 554; 292 U. S. 263. While this Court cannot hear the merits, it will, where the question of jurisdiction was not obviously settled by prior decisions, enforce the limitations of § 266 by an order framed to 'save appellants their proper rem…
-
Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1934)…fringement of the Fourteenth Amendment. An appeal taken directly to this Court from the district court, three judges sitting, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction here since, in the lower court, appellee had waived his prayer for temporary relief. 289 U.S. 701; see Smith v. Wilson, 273 U.S. 388, 391. [*265] The Act, effective April 14, 1931, requires payment of an annual license tax or fee for every hawker or peddler, defined to be “any person, either principal or agent, who goes from town to town, or pla…
-
Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1949)…s not pressed, we think that in view of this [*375] language it would be hypercritical for us to dismiss this appeal for failure of the record to show more definitely that the prayer for an interlocutory judgment was pressed. But see Healy v. Ratta, 289 U. S. 701, where the correspondence file in this Court shows receipt of a supplemental record containing a formal waiver of prayer for temporary relief. Ayrshire Corp. v. United States, supra, at 140; Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10. Compar…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence