green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1975 ·
…where the interlocutory order, for all practical purposes, presents a somewhat final aspect, an appellate court will review it in order to safeguard basic human rights or to prevent a great injustice to a defendant.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Barber
where the interlocutory order, for all practical purposes, presents a somewhat final aspect, an appellate court will review it in order to safeguard basic human rights or to prevent a great injustice to a defendant.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Barber
where the interlocutory order, for all practical purposes, presents a somewhat final aspect, an appellate court will review it in order to safeguard basic human rights or to prevent a great injustice to a defendant.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10, Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, Ibtcwha, and James R. Muniz, Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. San Francisco Typographical Union Local No. 21, Etc., Defendants
See Schauffler v. United Association of Journeymen, 230 F.2d 572 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 825 , 77 S.Ct. 37 , 1 L.Ed.2d 48 (1956); NLRB v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 193 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1952). 23 Although the authorities cited pertain principally to civil contempts we hold to the view that the jurisdiction of the district courts to enforce their orders made under section 10(l) of the Act applies as well to criminal contempts, and that a jury trial is not compelled by virtue of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3692. 24 Having thus concluded, it remains necessary to consider appellants' con…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10
See Schauffler v. United Association of Journeymen, 230 F.2d 572 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 825 , 77 S.Ct. 37 , 1 L.Ed.2d 48 (1956); NLRB v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 193 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1952).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Scott
v.
Wilson
v.
Wilson
No. 100.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1956.
Charles G. White, Forrest E. Ely, Harold A. Kertz and Luden H. Mercier for petitioners. Lyman Brownfield for respondent.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (2)
Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.