Jullus Rosenberg & Ethel Rosenberg v. United States, 345 U.S. 979 (1953). · Go Syfert
Search
Jullus Rosenberg & Ethel Rosenberg v. United States, 345 U.S. 979 (1953). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wamboldt v. Mannion (nysd, 1968-03-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Wamboldt v. Mannion
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny Skou, 101 F.Supp. 15 (E.D.Va.1951), aff’d 200 F.2d 246 (4th Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 992 , 73 S.Ct. 1129 , 97 L.Ed. 1400 (1953); Embrey v. Jemison, 131 U.S. 336 , 9 S.Ct. 776 , 33 L.Ed. 172 (1888).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sonja Lujan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kimberly Lujan, Deceased v. Regents of the University of California
10th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny Skou, 200 F.2d 246, 248 (4th Cir.1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 992 , 73 S.Ct. 1129 , 97 L.Ed. 1400 (1953); Anastasio v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 93 F.R.D. 560, 562 (D.N.J.1982); Johnson v. Koppers Co., 524 F.Supp. 1182, 1188 (N.D.Ohio 1981), appeal dismissed, 705 F.2d 451 , 454 (6th Cir.1982); Chartener, 270 F.Supp. at 436 ; Huang v. D'Albora, 644 A.2d 1, 3-4 (D.C.1994); Crenshaw v. Great Central Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jullus Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg
v.
United States
527.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 15, 1953.
345 U.S. 979
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

345 U.S. 989

73 S.Ct. 1151

97 L.Ed. 1397

Jullus ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg, petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. ___.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 15, 1953

Messrs. Emanuel H. Bloch and John F. Finerty, for petitioners.

Acting Solicitor General Stern, for the United States.

An application for stay of execution was filed herein on June 12, 1953. It was referred to Mr. Justice JACKSON, the appropriate Circuit Justice. Mr. Justice JACKSON referred it to the Court for consideration and action, with the recommendation 'that it be set for oral hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953, at which time the parties have agreed to be ready for argument.'

Upon consideration of the recommendation, the Court declined to hear oral argument on the application.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice BURTON, agreeing with Mr. Justice JACKSON'S recommendation, believe that the application should be set for hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953.

Thereupon, the Court gave consideration to the application for the stay, and denies it, Mr. Justice BURTON joining in such denial.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice JACKSON, believing that the application for a stay should not be acted upon without a hearing before the full Court, do not agree that the stay should be denied.

1

Mr. Justice BLACK is of the opinion that the Court should grant a rehearing and a stay pending final disposition of the case. But since a sufficient number do not vote for a rehearing, he is willing to join those who wish to hear argument on the question of a stay.

2

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS would grant a stay and hear the case on the merits, as he thinks the petition for certiorari and the petition for rehearing present substantial questions. But since the Court has decided not to take the case, 345 U.S. 965, 73 S.Ct. 949, there would be no end served by hearing oral argument on the motion for a stay. For the motion presents no new substantial question not presented by the petition for certiorari and by the petition for rehearing. 345 U.S. 1003, 73 S.Ct. 1151.