green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1950 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1950
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Craft
A court should “ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; accord, People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 633 P.2d 186 ].) In *560 determining such intent, the court “turns first to the words themselves for the answer” {People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175, 182 [ 217 P.2d 1 ], cert, den., 340 U.S. 879 [ 95 L.Ed. 639 , 71 S.Ct. 117 ]; accord, People v. Black (1982) 32 Cal.3d 1, 5 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 454 , 648 P.2d 104 ]), giving to them �…
discussed
Cited "see"
Heath v. State
(2×)
See Hiatt v. Compagna, 178 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1949) aff’d., Per Curiam, 340 U.S. 880 , 71 S.Ct. 192 , 95 L.Ed. 639 (1950); Petition of Osier, Mont., 477 P.2d 344, 345 (1970); Hyser v. Reed, supra. In response to appellants’ contention that the parole violation hearings afforded to them were not meaningful because of remoteness in both time and place, this Court directs attention to its conclusion that all the incidents of due process are not required to be observed at parole revocation hearings.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Albert Lauchli, Jr.
See Reed v. United States, 181 F.2d 141 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 879 , 71 S.Ct. 116 , 95 L.Ed. 639 (1950); Dillingham v. United States, 76 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1935).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See People v. Knowles, 35 Cal.2d 175 , 217 P.2d 1 (1950), cert. denied Knowles v. People of State of California, 340 U.S. 879 , 71 S.Ct. 117 , 95 L.Ed. 639 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Donnell Douglas v. Maurice H. Sigler, Warden, Nebraska Penal Complex
(2×)
See Hiatt v. Compagna, et al., 178 F.2d 42 (5 Cir. 1949), aff’d per curiam 340 U.S. 880 , 71 S.Ct. 192 , 95 L.Ed. 639 ; Douglas v. King, 110 F.2d 911 , 127 A.L.R. 1200 (8 Cir. 1940).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anzalone
See and compare also United States v. Weber, 7 Cir., 185 F.2d 479 , and Smiley v. United States, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 505, 506 , certiorari denied 340 U.S. 817 , 71 S.Ct. 48 , 63, 95 L.Ed. 601 , rehearing denied 340 U.S. 885 , 71 S.Ct. 192 ; 95 L.Ed. 642 . 7. Ҥ 5-29.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Engs Motor Truck Co. v. State Board of Equalization
“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [Citations.] Moreover ‘every statute should be construed with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.’ [Citation.] If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose. [Citation.] Such purpose will not be sacrificed to a literal construction of any part of the act. [Citations.]” (Select …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Edward Thomas Van Dusen v. John C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas
See also Hiatt v. Compagna, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 42 , affirmed by an equally divided court, 340 U.S. 880 , 71 S.Ct. 192 95 L.Ed. 636 . 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Compagna
v.
Hiatt, Warden
v.
Hiatt, Warden
No. 5.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1950.
Wm. Scott Stewart argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was A. Walton Nall. Stanley M. Silverberg argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Mclnerney, Robert S. Erdahl and Philip R. Monahan.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.