Mirro-Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 389 U.S. 896 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Mirro-Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 389 U.S. 896 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mortensen v. First Federal Savings And Loan Association (ca1, 1977-01-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mortensen v. First Federal Savings And Loan Association
1st Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
On appeal, the dismissal was reversed as premature because "where the factual and jurisdictional issues are completely intermeshed the jurisdictional issues should be referred to the merits, for it is impossible to decide the one without the other." Id., at 363.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
3rd Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
On appeal, the dismissal was reversed as premature because “where the factual and jurisdictional issues are completely intermeshed the jurisdictional issues should be referred to the merits, for it is impossible to decide the one without the other.” Id., at 363.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crane Co. v. Aeroquip Corporation
N.D. Ill. · 1973 · confidence medium
Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 380 F.2d 336 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 897 , 88 S. *558 Ct. 216, 19 L.Ed.2d 214 (1967).” 461 F.2d at 75 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dreyer v. Jalet
S.D. Tex. · 1972 · confidence medium
See Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 , 67 S.Ct. 1009 , 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency Committee, 374 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 896 , 88 S.Ct. 816 , 19 L.Ed.2d 214 *461 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd.
D. Mass. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 893 (quoting McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency Committee, 374 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 389 U.S. 896 , 88 S.Ct. 216 , 19 L.Ed.2d 214 (1967)) (“[W]here the factual and jurisdictional issues are completely intermeshed the jurisdictional issues should be referred to the merits, for it is impossible to decide the one without the other.”) The requirement that the First Circuit reaffirmed in its decision in Nippon, that the government prove “intended” as well as “substantial effects” on interstate commerce, reflects the special concerns attendant to prosec…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mirro-Dynamics Corp.
v.
United States
No. 357.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 16, 1967.
389 U.S. 896
Robert H. Wyshak and Lillian W. Wyshak for petitioner., Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Harold C. Wilkenfeld and Thomas Silk for the United States.
Published

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.