Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 362 U.S. 911 (1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 362 U.S. 911 (1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 · …where the objections stated and issues raised thereby are, even if true, legally insufficient, their effect is a nullity and no objections have been stated. ⚠ not in text
56 citation events across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Community Nutrition Institute v. Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, G.D. Searle & Co., Intervenor. Community Nutrition Institute v. Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (cadc, 1985-09-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Community Nutrition Institute v. Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, G.D. Searle & Co., Intervenor. Community Nutrition Institute v. Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
where the objections stated and issues raised thereby are, even if true, legally insufficient, their effect is a nullity and no objections have been stated.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Community Nutrition Institute v. Young
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
where the objections stated and issues raised thereby are, even if true, legally insufficient, their effect is a nullity and no objections have been stated.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Commonwealth v. Coleman
Mass. App. Ct. · 1985 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the test should be rather whether the evidence is of a quality to assure that a guilty verdict is solidly founded . . . . the testimony, although in a sense circumstantial, is absolutely inconsistent with collins' innocence.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chan Wing Cheung, alias Bill Woo
v.
Hagerty, Officer in Charge, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
No. 648.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 7, 1960.
362 U.S. 911
Peyton Ford and J. Howard McGrath for petitioner., Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop for respondent.
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2) · Massachusetts Appeals Court (1)

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.