HUNT OIL CO.

v.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; SCOTT ET AL. V. UNION PRODUCING CO. ET AL.; SOCONY MOBIL OIL CO., INC., V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; UNITED STATES V. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY; HANNAH ET AL. V. LARCHE ET AL.; HANNAH ET AL. V. SLAWSON ET AL.; GINSBURG V. GOURLEY, CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT; KICAK V. OHIO; OLSHAUSEN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; KRESHIK ET AL. V. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA; BERNSTEIN ET AL. V. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ET AL.; LIVINGSTON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; QUIRKE V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Little v. City OF N. Miami, 805 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …. Jenkins, 395 U.S. at 428, 89 S.Ct. at 1852. The Sixth Amendment is limited by its very terms to criminal prosecutions. U.S. Const, amend. VI; see Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 440 n. 16, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1513, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960), reh’g denied, 364 U.S. 855, 81 S.Ct. 33, 5 L.Ed.2d 79 (1960). The Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that the Sixth Amendment is not implicated until adversarial judicial proceedings have been initiated. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 1…
• Georator Corp. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 592 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1979)
  …on, as for example, when a general fact-finding investigation is being conducted, it is not necessary that the full panoply of judicial procedures be used.” Hannah v. Larche (1960) 363 U.S. 420, 442, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1514, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307, reh. denied 364 U.S. 855, 81 S.Ct. 33, 5 L.Ed.2d 79. When the preliminary determination is [*769] without legal effect in and of itself, due process will be satisfied if there is an opportunity to be heard before any final order of the agency becomes effective. Ewing v. Myt…
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Dep't OF the Treas. OF the State OF Mich., 522 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1975)
  …nterest from the date of the Court of Claims judgment. Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. 600.6455. The District Court concluded, relying on United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff’d 364 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed.2d 1719, reh. denied, 364 U.S. 855, 81 S.Ct. 35, 5 L.Ed.2d 79 (1960), that a remedy is not “plain, speedy and efficient” unless it includes allowance for interest to a successful litigant from the date of payment of the disputed tax. The Livingston Court cited Hopkins v. Southern Cal…