§
In the Matter of Z

8 Cited authorities

  1. Helvering v. Mitchell

    303 U.S. 391 (1938)   Cited 1,004 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that civil tax penalties are remedial

  2. Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins

    310 U.S. 381 (1940)   Cited 667 times
    Holding a statute constitutional where the private entity is "an aid" to the agency and is "subject" to the agency's "pervasive surveillance and authority"

  3. Local 167 v. United States

    291 U.S. 293 (1934)   Cited 219 times
    In Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, the judgment and decree were affirmed without change, the Court observing, at 299: "The United States is entitled to effective relief....

  4. Lewis v. Frick

    233 U.S. 291 (1914)   Cited 111 times
    In Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 304, 34 S.Ct. 488, 58 L.Ed. 967, the point was held open whether the terminus ad quem in a warrant of deportation was "open to inquiry upon habeas corpus."

  5. Stone v. United States

    167 U.S. 178 (1897)   Cited 113 times
    In Stone v. United States, 167 U.S. 178, 189, 17 S.Ct. 778, 42 L.Ed. 127 (1897), we held that a party appealing from the judgment in one of two cases consolidated for trial could not also raise claims with respect to the other case.

  6. United States v. Accardo

    113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J. 1953)   Cited 41 times
    In United States v. Accardo, 113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J.), affirmed and adopted in 208 F.2d 632 (3d Cir.), the question was given extensive consideration where a plea of guilty to a felony was applied by estoppel in a proceeding to revoke defendant's naturalization.

  7. Chantangco v. Abaroa

    218 U.S. 476 (1910)   Cited 28 times
    Stating that "[t]he general rule of the common law is that a judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil action to establish any fact there determined" and identifying the primary reason for this rule as "the parties are not the same"

  8. United States v. American Precision Products Corp.

    115 F. Supp. 823 (D.N.J. 1953)   Cited 23 times
    In United States v. American Precision, D.C., 115 F. Supp. 823, the president of the corporation was liable under this statute.