green
Positive treatment
1.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Emspak v. United States
See Greenberg v. United States, 341 U. S. 944 (1951), 343 U. S. 918 (1952); Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944 (1952), and the discussion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Coffey, supra. 1 consider that the 10 questions involved in Counts 59-68 of the indictment qualified, in the circumstances of this case, as incriminatory questions under the “real danger v. imaginary possibility” standard. 61 Stat. 146 , 29 U. S. C. § 159 (h). 18 U. S. C. § 2385 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Raymond E. Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Authority
See 334 U.S. at 336-37 , 68 S.Ct. at 1026 ; see also Elder v. Brannan, 341 U.S. 277, 283 , 71 S.Ct. 685, 688 , 95 L.Ed. 939 , reh’g denied, 341 U.S. 956 , 71 S.Ct. 1012 , 95 L.Ed. 1377 (1951).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sunbeam Corporation
v.
Wentling
v.
Wentling
No. 538.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 4, 1951.
Herman T. Van Mell, Ira Jewell Williams, Jr., Thomas Rae-burn White and Ira Jewell Williams for petitioner. Gilbert Nurick for respondent. Briefs of amici curiae supporting the petition were filed by Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, and William C. Wines, Robert J. Bur-dett and John T. Coburn, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Illinois; and Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, and Harry F. Stambaugh for the State of Pennsylvania.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Per Curiam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in the light of Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., ante, p. 384.