PARKER

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Parker v. United States, 153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946)
  …of the court. Parker appealed from this order of June 16, 1942, filing a supersedeas bond in the sum of $20,000.1 We affirmed the order imposing the compensatory fine, in Parker v. United States, 1 Cir., 1943, 135 F. 2d 54, certiorari denied 1943, 320 U.S. 737, 64 S.Ct. 35, 88 L.Ed. 436. Our opinion in that case describes the conduct of Parker constituting the contempt, and explains how the amount of the compensatory fine was calculated. It is unnecessary to repeat the discussion of these matters in the p…
• Backo v. Local 281, 438 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1970)
  …De Parcq v. United States District Court, 235 F. 2d 692, 697 (8th Cir. 1956). No such rule applies to purely compensatory civil contempt judgments.3 This principle is illustrated in Parker v. United States, 135 F. 2d 54 (1st Cir. 1943), cert. denied 320 U.S. 737, 64 S.Ct. 35, 88 L.Ed. 436 (1943), where the court found the defendant liable, in a post judgment civil contempt proceeding for damages due to disobedience of both an interlocutory and final order. See also Vincent v. Local 294, International Brothe…
• The United States v. Nils A. BOE, 543 F.2d 151 (C.C.P.A. 1976)
  …nd cannot be exercised in disregard of the mandatory requirements of the jurisdictional statute. American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States, 34 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 335 (1946); Jacksonville Paper Co. v. United States, 30 CCPA 159, C.A.D. 228, cert. denied, 320 U.S. 737, 64 S.Ct. 36, 88 L.Ed. 436 (1943). The jurisdiction of Article III courts, below the Supreme Court, is limited and dependent upon Congressional implementation of Article III. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts § 7 (2d ed. 1970); Wechsler,…