green
Positive treatment
1.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1933 ·
…a new remedy for enforcing the existing liability at law or in equity,
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1938 ·
…but an agreement for cross-licensing and division of royalties violates the act only when used to effect a monopoly, or to fix prices, or to impose otherwise an unreasonable restraint upon interstate commerce.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1935 ·
…it is perfectly plain that the death of the grantor was the indispensable and intended event which brought the larger estate into being for the grantee and effected its transmission from the dead to the living, thus satisfying the terms of the taxing act and justifying the tax i…
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931
1978
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Bradford
See particularly the note on page 326 of 283 U. S., 51 S. Ct. 465, 468, where it is said: “On similar grounds the bankruptcy courts refuse to enjoin the prosecution of foreclosure proceedings under a mortgage, the lien of whieh is preserved in bankruptcy, if initiated prior to the date of the petition.” But these decisions had reference to situations arising under the bankruptcy law where it did not undertake to interfere with the liens of secured creditors, and where the state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES Ex Rel. CATECHES
v.
DAY, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
v.
DAY, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
336.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 23, 1931.
Mr. Harold Van Riper for petitioner., Mr. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney-General, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Dodds, and Messrs. Harry S. Ridgely, and Paul D. Miller were on the brief, for respondent.
Holmes.
Cited by 60 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case also arose in the Second Circuit, upon facts similar to those in No. 92, ante, p. 48. The petitioner arrived in this country in October, 1925, upon an Italian ship, deserted at once and since has been engaged in land employment. He was arrested May 8, 1929, and after hearing was ordered to be deported on the same ground as the petitioner in No. 92. A writ of habeas corpus was applied for alleging that the arrest was not made within three years from the date of entry. The writ was dismissed by the District Court and the order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
Judgment affirmed.