KOSSICK

v.

UNITED FRUIT CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1961)
  …there being no allegation that such agreement was evidenced by any writing, 166 F. Supp. 571.3 The Court of Appeals affirmed. 275 F. 2d 500. We brought the case here because it presented novel questions as to the interplay of state and maritime law. 363 U. S. 838. At the outset, we think it clear that the lower courts were correct in regarding the sufficiency of this complaint as depending entirely upon its averments respecting respondent’s alleged agreement with petitioner. Liability here certainly cannot…
• Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1961)
  …urrounding Reek’s confession, the District Court held “the Due Process Clause not violated in the instant case.” 172 F. Supp. 734. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting, 274 F. 2d 250, and we granted certiorari, 363 U. S. 838. The only question presented is whether the State of Illinois violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using as evidence at Reek’s trial confessions which he had been coerced into making. The question whether there has been a…
• Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1961)
  …he Supreme Court of Iowa but that application was also denied. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed here in forma pauperis was granted, as was his petition for certiorari, which wa,s limited to the question posed in the opening paragraph, supra. 363 U. S. 838. In Burns v. Ohio, supra, we decided that a State could not “constitutionally require ... an indigent defendant in a criminal case [to] pay a filing fee before permitting him to file a motion for leave to appeal in one of its courts.” At p. 253. T…