Communist Party of the United States of America v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1958)
green
· 79 citation events
across 18 courts.
Showing the 18 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
195819922026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Landry v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (2000)
Cf. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 254 F.2d 314, 327-28 (D.C.Cir.1958) (holding that in agency adjudications in which the government has not claimed privilege, written reports made at the time of an event must be produced when the credibility of the witness on matters discussed in the report is in question).
Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 402-403, 254 F.2d 314, 321-322 (1958); Wilson v. Newburgh, 42 App.D.C. 407 (1914); 5 Moore's Federal Practice §§ 52.06 [2], 52.13 (1951).
The rule applies to proceedings of the Board because "the laws under which these agencies operate prescribe the fundamentals of fair play.' Their proceedings must 'satisfy the pertinent demands of due process." Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314, 327 (1958). 8 Whether the compulsion of the rule is constitutional or statutory, 9 the Board may not avoid it by adopting regulations inconsistent with its …
green
Harvey Aluminum v. National Labor Relations Board (1964)
The rule applies to proceedings of the Board because “ ‘the laws under which these agencies operate prescribe the fundamentals of fair play.’ Their proceedings must ‘satisfy the pertinent demands of due process.’ ” Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314, 327 (1958). 8 Whether the compulsion of the rule is constitutional or statutory, 9 the Board may not avoid it by adopting regulations inconsistent with …
green
James M. Moore v. Administrator, Veterans Administration, Chairman and Commissioners, United States Civil Ser… (1973)
It requires only that where a witness has already testified “about an event long past, and it is shown that this witness at or about the time of the event made a written report to the Government concerning that event, and the testimony is material, and the credibility of the witness . . . upon this precise point is attacked, the Government upon demand must produce the report made by the witness.” Communist Party v. SACB, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 409, 254 F.2d 314, 328 (1958).
Bd., 102 U.S. App.D.C. 395, 399, 254 F.2d 314, 318 (1958) 14 Such as a birthday meeting in Los Angeles, a tribute to Stalin, a protest against a visit by a Falangist Dance Group and by the Mayor of Madrid, and the publication of a book on the Spanish Civil War 15 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 , 76 S.Ct. 477 , 100 L.
green
Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, Public Service Commission… (1963)
They rely essentially on Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U. S.App.D.C. 395, 403-405, 254 F.2d 314, 322-324 (1958); Same, 107 U.S.App.
green
Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd. (2016)
Examiners v. Hedgepath, 325 S.C. 166 , 480 S.E.2d 724, 726 (1997); see generally Communist Party of the U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 254 F.2d 314, 321 (D.C.
“Almost any communication ... may be confidential .... But privileged means that the contents are of such character that the law as a matter of public policy protects them against disclosure.”
green
Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission (1963)
They rely essentially on Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 403-405, 254 F.2d 314, 322-324 (1958); Same, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 279 , 281-282, 277 F.2d 78, 81 (1959), aff’d, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961).
Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 408-09, 254 F.2d 314, 327-28 (1958).
green
Saunders v. District of Columbia (1970)
Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , *60 408, 254 F.2d 314, 327 (1958). 4 See also Harvey Aluminum (Inc.) v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.1964); NLRB v. Adhesive Products Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir.1958.
green
Eduardo Cruz v. Robert Alexander (1983)
See Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 254 F.2d 314, 321 (D.C.Cir.1958) (“Of course, if the Supreme Court reversed and directs that a certain final judgment be entered, the whole controversy is ended”).
green
Helen Mascuilli, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Mascuilli, Deceased v. United States (1969)
Compare Communist Party v. Subversive Activities, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314 (1958).
See Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U. S.App.D.C. 395, 254 F.2d 314, 327-328 ; also Walling v. Twyeffort, Inc., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 944, 948 .
green
United States v. Dockery (1972)
See Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314 (1958), aff'd on other grounds, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S. Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961).
green
Davis & Randall, Inc. v. United States (1963)
See Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314, 326-330 (D.C.Cir. 1958), applying Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 , 77 S.Ct. 1007 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), to an administrative proceeding, followed in N. L.
green
Richard G. Augenblick v. The United States (1967)
See also Communist Party of U. S. v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314, 327, 328 (1958); 103 Cong.Rec. 15933-34, 15928, 16488-89, 16738 (1957).
See e. g., Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314 (D.C.Cir.1958); NLRB v. Adhesive Products Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958).