RATHJEN BROTHERS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Imboden v. United States, 194 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1952)
  …el and to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses. Peterson v. United States, 6 Cir., 173 F. 2d 111, 115; Niznik v. United States, 6 Cir., 173 F. 2d 328, 336; Ex parte Stanziale, 3 Cir., 138 F. 2d 312, 314, certiorari denied, Stanziale v. Paullin, 320 U.S. 797, 64 S.Ct. 267, 88 L.Ed. 481. Appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the inquiry and hearing. We do not agree with appellant’s contention that he was denied a conscientious objector classification because he had been irregular in ch…
• Ill. Packing Co. v. Bowles, 147 F.2d 554 (Emer. Ct. App. 1945)
  …rders is limited to regulations or orders issued under § 2 of the Act, and then only after a protest duly filed under § 203 (a) has been denied in whole or in part. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Brown, Em.App., 1943, 138 F. 2d 278, certiorari denied 1943, 320 U.S. 797, 64 S.Ct. 266. Curiously enough, the complainant joins with respondent in asserting our lack of jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, though for different reasons. Complainant asks us to place our denial of jurisdiction upon the ground t…
• United States v. Pitt, 144 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1944)
  …ial of due process of law. This question is not presently before us. Cf. Ex parte Catanzaro, 3 Cir., 138 F. 2d 100, 102, certiorari denied 321 U.S. 793, 64 S.Ct. 789; Ex parte Stanziale, 3 Cir., 138 F. 2d 312, certiorari denied Stanziale v. Paullin, 320 U.S. 797, 64 S.Ct. 267. We must reject also the contention that the court itself should have determined the correctness of Pitt’s classification. There is no authority for such a proposition in the Act; none is cited in the appellant’s brief and we know of…