green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Ship Shape Maintenance Co., Inc.
See note 18, infra 14 We must remember that "'[t]he judicial function is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions approved by the administrative body' * * * [, for] the findings of the Board and the Trial Examiner, especially when, as in the instant case, they [have] concur[red], are not lightly to be disregarded." International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. N.L.R.B., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 196, 200 , 392 F.2d 801 , 805 (1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 906 , 88 S.Ct. 2058 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1364 (1968) 15 See, e. g., N.L.R.B. v. Sut…
discussed
Cited "see"
Fields v. United States
(2×)
See Leary v. United States, 383 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1967), rehearing den. 392 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. granted 392 U.S. 903 , 88 S.Ct. 2058 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1362 (June 10, 1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cook Paint and Varnish Company v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See, e. g., International Union, United Automobile, etc. Wkrs of America v. NLRB, 392 F.2d 801 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 906 , 88 S.Ct. 2058 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1364 (1968); Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 185 F.2d 732, 743-744 (D.C.Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. United States
(2×)
See also, Leary v. United States, 392 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.), cert. granted 392 U.S. 903 , 88 S.Ct. 2058 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1362 (1968); United States v. McGee, 282 F.Supp. 550, 551 (M.D.Tenn. 1968); United States v. Richardson, 284 F.Supp. 419 (M.D.Ala.1968).
Leary
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 1365.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 10, 1968.
Robert J. Haft for petitioner., Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari granted limited to Questions I and IV, presented by the petition which read as follows:
“I. Whether the registration and tax provisions in 26 U. S. C. Sections 4741 (a), 4742 and 4744 (a), as applied to Petitioner, violate his privilege against self incrimination protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his rights thereunder as amplified by this Court in three recently decided cases: Marchetti v. U. S., 390 U. S. 39 (1968); Grosso v. U. S., 390 U. S. 62 (1968); and Haynes v. U. S., 390 U. S. 85 (1968).”
“IV. Whether Petitioner was denied due process under the Fifth Amendment by the application, under the circumstances of this case, of the provisions of 21 U. S. C. § 176a, providing that an inference may be drawn respecting the illegal origin and nature of marihuana solely from possession thereof.”