James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 267 U.S. 86 (1925). · Go Syfert
Search
James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 267 U.S. 86 (1925). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2006 · …t is not to be doubted that a single man of prudence and good sense, is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives, which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatsoever. ⚠ not in text
195 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 62 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re: Aiken County (cadc, 2013-08-13) · Strongest negative: Harvey M. Matusow v. United States (ca5, 1956-01-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Harvey M. Matusow v. United States
5th Cir. · 1956 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see the arguments contra in Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 .
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In Re: Aiken County
D.C. Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the executive can reprieve or pardon all offenses after their commission, either before trial, during trial or after trial, by individuals, or by classes....
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) McKithen v. Brown
E.D.N.Y · 2008 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Fletcher v. Graham (6×) also: Cited "see"
Ky. · 2006 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
t is not to be doubted that a single man of prudence and good sense, is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives, which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatsoever.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Gilman v. Commonwealth (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Va. Ct. App. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
contempt proceedings are sui generis because they are not hedged about with all the safeguards provided in the bill of rights for protecting one accused of ordinary crime from the danger of unjust conviction.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) City of Baton Rouge v. Ross
La. · 1995 · signal: compare · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he language of the constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bacon v. Lee
N.C. · 2001 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 430, 436 (1974); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 110 , 69 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. McVeigh (2×) also: Cited "see"
W.D. Okla. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 , 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1535 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622, 627 (1966); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111 , 45 S.Ct. 332, 334 , 69 L.Ed. 527, 531-32 (1925); Ager v. Jane C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Horn
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., ___ ____ United States v. Bodcaw, 440 U.S. 202 , 203-04 n.3 (1979) (per _____________ ______ curiam); Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70 , 73-74 _____________________ _________ (1927); United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1 , 20 _____________ ______________________ (1926); Shewan v. United States, 267 U.S. 86, 87 (1925). ______ _____________ The Supreme Court recently removed any vestige of doubt that may have lingered as to whether these cases envisioned sovereign immunity as a bar not only to costs but also to attorneys' fees.6 See Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Cl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Horn
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Bodcaw, 440 U.S. 202 , 203-04 n.3 (1979) (per curiam); Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70, 73-74 (1927); United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 20 (1926); Shewan v. United States, 267 U.S. 86, 87 (1925).
cited Cited "see" Blount v. Clarke
Va. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 , 120, 121 [ 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925) ].
cited Cited "see" David I. Smith v. Robert McDonald
4th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-09 , 45 S.Ct. 332, 333 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925).
discussed Cited "see" In Re the Salary of the Juvenile Director (2×)
Wash. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 119-20 , 69 L.Ed. 527 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 38 A.L.R. 131 (1925).
discussed Cited "see" Roosevelt F. Palmore v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and The Federal System 1431 (2d ed. 1973); see Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925); Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378 , 39 S.Ct. 337 , 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919); Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488 , 25 S.Ct. 506 , 49 L.Ed. 848 (1905).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Barker
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 120-21 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925); State v. Leak, 5 Ind. 359, 363 (1854); 2 Hawkin’s Pleas of the Crown, ch. 37, § 8, at 533 (8th ed. J.
cited Cited "see" Hoffa v. Saxbe
D.D.C. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925).
discussed Cited "see" Maurice Schick v. George J. Reed, Chairman of the United States Board of Parole (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 121-122 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.
cited Cited "see" Reynolds ex rel. Albizu Campos v. Delgado
prsupreme · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 120, 121 , 69 L.Ed. 527, 535 , 38 A.L.R. 131 , 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 332.
examined Cited "see" North Atlantic & Gulf S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States (3×)
2d Cir. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 267 U.S. 86 , 45 S.Ct. 238 , 69 L.Ed. 527 .
cited Cited "see" Ex Parte Denton
Okla. Crim. App. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 120, 121 , 45 S. Ct. 332 , 69 L.
cited Cited "see" Adkins v. Commonwealth
Ky. Ct. App. · 1929 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 120, 121 , 45 S. Ct. 332 , 69 L.
cited Cited "see" Hempel v. Weedin
W.D. Wash. · 1928 · signal: see · confidence high
See ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 120, 121 , 45 S. Ct. 332 , 69 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Howell v. McAuliffe
Va. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
After discussing the matter, another delegate suggested seemingly broader language that the Governor "have the power ... to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior, or subsequent to, the adoption of this Constitution." See Convention Journal at 149; see also Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 , 117, 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925) (explaining that "the term 'offences' is used in the Constitution in a more comprehensive sense than are the terms 'crimes' and 'criminal prosecutions' ").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Armstrong v. Guccione
2d Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith, Aldridge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, § 1-47, at 15 (2d ed.1999) (noting that, in cases reported between 1557-1604, English Chancery courts would compel obedience to their orders through imprisonment); see also Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111, 121 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925) (explaining that, long before the time of our Constitution, the law of contempt recognized a remedial or coercive component "necessary to secure the rights of the injured suitor"). 65 Armstrong's principal objection to our conclusion—that Congress, through the creation of lower federal courts, authoriz…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Armstrong v. Guccione
2d Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith, Aldridge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, § 1-47, at 15 (2d ed.1999) (noting that, in cases reported between 1557-1604, English Chancery courts would compel obedience to their orders through imprisonment); see also Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111, 121 , 45 S.Ct. 332 , 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925) (explaining that, long before the time of our Constitution, the law of contempt recognized a remedial or coercive component “necessary to secure the rights of the injured suitor”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Shewan & Sons, Inc.
v.
United States
42.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 2, 1925.
267 U.S. 86
Taft.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
5 passages pin-cited by 5 cases
Pinpoint authority: #26,785 of 633,719
Citer courts: Kentucky Supreme Court (2) · D.C. Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Louisiana (1) · E.D. New York (1) · Court of Appeals of Virginia (1)
Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On November 17, 1924, this Court reversed the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a libel in admiralty against the United States, brought to recover the value pf repairs made on the steamship Biran, owned by the United States. The suit[*87] was brought under an act authorizing suits .against the United States in admiralty, etc., approved March 9, .1920, ch. 95, 41 Stat. 525. 'Nothing was said in' the opinion about costs. The ordinary rule is that costs are not allowed against the United States. Pine River Company v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 296; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 272; United States v. Ringgold, 8 Peters, 150, 163; The Antelope, 12 Wheaton, 546, 550. The mandate issued by the Clerk accordingly did not award any costs against the United States. The appellant now applies for a withdrawal of the mandate, in order to award them. He relies on Section 3 of the act under which the suit was -brought. That provides that such suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties. A decree against the United States may include costs of suit, and when the decree is for money judgment, interest also at the rate of 4 per cent, per .annum until- satisfied, or at any higher rate which shall be stipulated in any contract upon which such decree shall be based. Interest is to run as ordered by the court. In accordance with this provision we must assess the costs of this appeal against the United States and direct the District Court to assess also the costs of suit in that court and interest as that court shall order it' in accordance with the statute.

It is so ordered.