GULLO
v.
GULLO; CLINTON V. UNITED STATES; BANKS V. UNITED STATES; SLIVA V. PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.; SCOTT V. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; SCOTT V. CITIZENS NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES ET AL.; RAINSBERGER V. LEYPOLDT, SHERIFF
GULLO
GULLO; CLINTON V. UNITED STATES; BANKS V. UNITED STATES; SLIVA V. PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.; SCOTT V. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; SCOTT V. CITIZENS NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES ET AL.; RAINSBERGER V. LEYPOLDT, SHERIFF
369 U.S. 832
Supreme Court of the United States (1962)
Caution
Cited by 20 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…n v. United States, 7 Cir. 1962, 305 F. 2d 34; Banks v. United States, 7 Cir. 1961, 287 F. 2d 374, cert. denied, 1961, 366 U.S. 939, 81 S.Ct. 1668, 6 L.Ed.2d 850, cert. denied, 1962, 369 U.S. 804, 82 S.Ct. 645, 7 L.Ed.2d 551, rehearing denied, 1962, 369 U.S. 832, 82 S.Ct. 847, 7 L.Ed.2d 797. See also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (Supp. 1963), note 10, pages 98-99. As to appellant’s contention of false swearing or use of perjured testimony, a reading of this portion of the motion shows it to constitute an attempt to…
-
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963)…in this present proceedings.” 3 The Attorney General’s current appeal is from this decision. Probable jurisdiction was noted on February 20, 1961, 365 U. S. 809. The case was argued last Term, and restored to the calendar for reargument this Term, 369 U. S. 832. B. Cort — No. 3. Cort, the appellee in No. 3, is also a native-born American, born in Boston in 1927. Unlike Mendoza-Martinez, he has no dual nationality. His wife and two young children are likewise American citizens by birth. Following receipt…
-
ITT Lamp Div. of the Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Minter, 435 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1970)…ty of welfare benefits to present or prospective striker recipients and the likelihood of prolongation of either strike. . Of the same genus was our own case, General Electric Co. v. Callahan, 294 F. 2d 60 (1st Cir. 1961), appeal dis [*992] missed, 369 U.S. 832, 82 S.Ct. 851, 7 L.Ed.2d 840 (1962), in which state legislation authorized a state tribunal to investigate a labor dispute and publicly report its findings as to the blameworthiness of the parties. . United Construction Workers v. Laburnum, 347 U.S…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence