green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
Suburban Realty Company v. United States
See 389 U.S. at 571-572, 86 S.Ct. at 1032 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Application of the United States of America in the Matter of an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register or Similar Mechanical Device
(2×)
See Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 273 F.Supp. 1, 6 (E.D.Mo.1967), aff'd mem., 389 U.S. 579 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968). 29 It is true that, until the recent decision of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., supra, the authority granted by the All Writs Act was apparently never used to issue orders auxiliary to a search warrant.
examined
Cited "see"
Mobile Home Express, Ltd. v. United States
(3×)
See Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 275 F.Supp. 98, 103 (D.Del.), aff’d, 389 U.S. 569 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert D. Moore, Branch Chairman, Patco, Rocky Mountain Chapter, United States of America v. Clinton H. Abnet
(4×)
See Faubus v. United States, 8 Cir., 254 F.2d 797 , cert. denied 358 U.S. 829 , 79 S.Ct. 49 , 3 L.Ed.2d 68 , and Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, E.D.Mo., 273 F.Supp. 1 , affirmed Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 389 U.S. 579 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hankins v. Finnel
(2×)
See also Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 273 F.Supp. 1 (E.D.Mo.1967), aff'd sub nom., Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 389 U.S. 579 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968) (federal court has authority to issue orders effectuating its original judgment against a nonparty under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ). 2.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Towne Services Household Goods Transportation Co. v. United States
(3×)
See, e. g., Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 275 F.Supp. 98, 102 (W.D.Tex.1967), aff’d per curiam 389 U.S. 569 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968); Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 271 F.Supp. 906, 911-912 (W.D.Tex.1967); Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States, 239 F.Supp. 694, 697 (W.D.Tex.1965), aff’d. per curiam 382 U.S. 19 , 86 S.Ct. 83 , 15 L.Ed.2d 14 (1965).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Ashworth Transfer, Inc. v. United States
(3×)
See, e. g., Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 275 F.Supp. 98,102-103 (W.D.Tex.1967), aff’d per curiam, 389 U.S. 569 , 88 S.Ct. 692 , 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968); Garrett Freightlines, Inc. v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 1245 (D.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
790.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 15, 1968.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 40 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
T. S. Christopher for appellants.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Emmanuel H. Smith for the United States et al.; David Axelrod for Pacific Intermountain Express Co. et al., and Wentworth E. Griffin and Phillip Robinson for Transcon Lines, appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.