§
In the Matter of C

9 Cited authorities

  1. Hormel v. Helvering

    312 U.S. 552 (1941)   Cited 974 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding an exception to the waiver rule exists in "those in which there have been judicial interpretations of existing law after decision below and pending appeal—interpretations which if applied might have materially altered the result"

  2. Wieman v. Updegraff

    344 U.S. 183 (1952)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that State cannot require employees to establish their loyalty by extracting oath denying past affiliation with Communist Party

  3. Galvan v. Press

    347 U.S. 522 (1954)   Cited 389 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while aliens may receive procedural due process, the court's ability to review the substantive policy of immigration statutes is limited to review for rationality

  4. Donaldson v. Read Magazine

    333 U.S. 178 (1948)   Cited 109 times
    Holding that “[t]he purpose of mail fraud orders is not punishment, but prevention of future injury to the public by denying the use of the mails to aid a fraudulent scheme,” such that the Postmaster's order forbidding delivery of a magazine owners' mail due to fraud was not a “punishment” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment

  5. Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States

    318 U.S. 73 (1943)   Cited 110 times
    Upholding the Interstate Commerce Commission's denial of an appellant's application for a permit to continue designated contract carrier operations under the grandfather clause of a particular statute, because Congress amended the relevant laws between the appellant's filing of the application and the Interstate Commerce Commission's final order, adding an additional requirement that the appellant could not fulfill

  6. United States v. Throckmorton

    98 U.S. 61 (1878)   Cited 750 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 70, the court said: "In the class of cases to which this belongs, however, the practice of the English and the American courts has been to require the name of the Attorney General as indorsing the suit before it will be entertained.

  7. United States v. Colorado Anthracite Co.

    225 U.S. 219 (1912)   Cited 22 times

    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 227. Argued April 25, 1912. Decided May 27, 1912. An assign within the meaning of § 2 of the act of June 16, 1880, 21 Stat. 287, c. 244, is one who becomes invested with the entryman's right in the land through the voluntary act of the latter. While a mere quitclaim deed does not pass after acquired title, the equitable title of one who was also trustee to acquire the title for the grantee will pass by such a deed. Equity usually looks upon that as done which

  8. Nudd v. Burrows

    91 U.S. 426 (1875)   Cited 75 times
    In Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426, it was sought to interpret the act of June 1, 1872, (sec. 914, Revised Statutes,) as bringing the Federal judges, when charging a jury in Illinois within the practice act of that State, directing that the court, in charging the jury, shall instruct them only as to the law of the case, and give no instructions unless reduced to writing.

  9. Latva v. Nicolls

    106 F. Supp. 658 (D. Mass. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    Misc. Civ. No. 52-49. August 6, 1952. Frederick Cohen, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Philip T. Jones, of Boston, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Albert E. Reitzel, of Washington, D.C., Asst. Gen. Counsel of United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service, for respondent. WYZANSKI, District Judge. Petitioner, having been ordered deported under § 22 of the McCarran Act, (the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 1006 amending § 1(2)(c) and § 4(a) of the Act of October 16