green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.1 score
“conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient to convict defendant for violating malum prohibitum regulatory statute. there is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.”
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Frezzo Bros., Inc.
conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient to convict defendant for violating malum prohibitum regulatory statute. there is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.
cited
Cited "see"
Artway v. Attorney General of New Jersey
See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 , 78 S.Ct. 240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957), rehearing denied, 355 U.S. 937 , 78 S.Ct. 410 , 2 L.Ed.2d 419 (1958).
cited
Cited "see"
Hutchison Bros. Excavation Co. v. District of Columbia
See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 , 78 S. Ct. 240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957), reh. denied, 355 U.S. 937 , 78 S.Ct. 410 , 2 L.Ed.2d 419 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gruen
See also, Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 , 78 S.Ct. 240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (struck down ordinance, which required convicted felons who remained in Los Angeles for more than five days to register with police, since ordinance punished a failure to act without requiring a showing of knowledge of duty to act), reh'g denied, 355 U.S. 937 , 78 S.Ct. 410 , 2 L.Ed.2d 419 (1958); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57 , 30 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed. 930 (1910) (held statute did not deny due process of law, but may be justified as a valid exercise of police power).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Young
See also Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 , 500 n. 2, 71 S.Ct. 857 , 862 n. 2, 95 L.Ed. 1137 ("petitioners themselves requested a charge similar to the one given, and under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., would appear to be barred from raising this point on appeal"), reh'g denied, 342 U.S. 842 , 72 S.Ct. 20 , 96 L.Ed. 636 (1951), reh'g denied, 355 U.S. 936 , 78 S.Ct. 409 , 2 L.Ed.2d 419 (1958); United States v. Wiggins, 530 F.2d 1018, 1020 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("an invited error generally does not require reversal, i.e., appellant cannot now complain that the co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Young
See also Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 , 500 n. 2, 71 S.Ct. 857 , 862 n. 2, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (“petitioners themselves requested a charge similar to the one given, and under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., would appear to be barred from raising this point on appeal”), reh’g denied, 342 U.S. 842 , 72 S.Ct. 20 , 96 L.Ed. 636 (1951), reh’g denied, 355 U.S. 936 , 78 S.Ct. 409 , 2 L.Ed.2d 419 (1958); United States v. Wiggins, 530 F.2d 1018, 1020 (D.C.Cir.1976) (“an invited error generally does not require reversal, i.e., appellant cannot now complain t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rudnik v. Mayers
(2×)
See, e.g., Lambert v. California (1957), 355 US 225 ( 78 S Ct 240 , 2 L Ed 2d 419 ); Averill v. Wood (1889), 78 Mich 342, 351, 352 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Airlines, Inc.
v.
North American Airlines, Inc., and Civil Aeronautics Board
v.
North American Airlines, Inc., and Civil Aeronautics Board
55.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 3, 1958.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
AMERICAN AIRLINES, Inc., petitioner,
v.
NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES, Inc., and Civil Aeronautics Board.
No. 55.
Supreme Court of the United States
February 3, 1958
Mr. Howard C. Westwood, for petitioner.
Mr. O. D. Ozment (Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Messrs. Daniel M. Friedman, Franklin M. Stone and Robert L. Toomey, on the brief), for respondent Civil Aeronautics Board.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
1
The judgment is reversed insofar as it set aside the Board's order. American Airlines, Inc. v. North American Airlines, Inc., 351 U.S. 79, 76 S.Ct. 600, 100 L.Ed. 953.
Mr. Justice ODUGLAS dissents