Van Huffel Tube Corp. v. Bowers, 352 U.S. 804 (1956). · Go Syfert
Van Huffel Tube Corp. v. Bowers, 352 U.S. 804 (1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Harris (calctapp, 1992-10-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
Cal. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
In Waller v. Georgia, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that “there can be little doubt that the explicit Sixth Amendment right of the accused is no less protective of a public trial than the implicit First Amendment right of the press and public.” ( 467 U.S. at p. 46 [8.1 L.Ed.2d at p. 38].) The peremptory challenge process, precisely because it is an integral part of the voir dire/jury impanelment process, is a part of the “trial” to which a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial extends.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barney v. State Tax Assessor
Me. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Goodwin v. State Tax Comm'n, 286 A.D. 694 , 146 N.Y.S.2d 172 (App.Div.1955), aff’d mem., 1 N.Y.2d 680 , 150 N.Y.S.2d 203 , 133 N.E.2d 711 (N.Y.1956), app. dis., 352 U.S. 805 , 77 S.Ct. 47 , 1 L.Ed.2d 38 (1956); Berry v. State Tax Comm'n, 241 Or. 580 , 397 P.2d 780 (1964), reh. den., 241 Or. 580 , 399 P.2d 164 , app. dis., 382 U.S. 16 , 86 S.Ct. 57 , 15 L.Ed.2d 12 (1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel
Mo. · 1958 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Taylor v. State, Old., 291 P.2d 1033, 1041 , appeal dismissed 352 U.S. 805 , 77 S.Ct. 33 , 1 L.Ed.2d 38 ; Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine of State v. Tubbs, Okl., 307 P.2d 830, 832 ; Weber v. Florida State Board of Optometry, Fla., 73 So.2d 408 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Van Huffel Tube Corp.
v.
Bowers, Tax Commissioner of Ohio
No. 66.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1956.
352 U.S. 804
Robert G. Day for appellants. C. William O’Neill, Attorney General of Ohio, and W. E. Herron, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.