Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dibella Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 19, 1962

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

74 entries 7 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Wilson Vs. Schnettler US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1961
  2. Burdeau Vs. Mcdowell US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1921
  3. Mclish Vs. Roff US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1891
  4. Forgay Vs. Conrad US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1848
  5. United States Vs. Rosenwasser US Supreme Court · Jan 02, 1945
  6. United States Vs. Sanges US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  7. Dier Vs. Banton US Supreme Court · May 07, 1923
  8. DiBella v. United
    Search
  9. States - 369 U.S. 121 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court DiBella v. United
    Search
  10. States, 369 U.S. 121 (1962) DiBella v. United
    Search
  11. by this Court. We have denied appealability from orders on post-indictment motions to both the Government, Carroll v. United
    Search
  12. States, 354 U. S. 394 , and the defendant, Page 369 U. S. 124 Cogen v. United
    Search
  13. McLish v. Roff
    Search
  14. and leaden-footed administration of justice, particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases. See Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  15. types of proceedings where the damage of error unreviewed before the judgment is definitive and complete, see Collins v. Miller
    Search
  16. appeal from orders definitively directing an immediate transfer of property, although an accounting remains, Forgay v. Conrad
    Search
  17. Radio Station WOW v. Johnson
    Search
  18. Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  19. U. S. 546 , when the practical effect of the order will be irreparable by any subsequent appeal. E.g., Stack v. Boyle
    Search
  20. Swift & Co. v. Compania
    Search
  21. Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1953), 113. Particularly is this true of criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., Parr v. United
    Search
  22. its disposition, as the Court recognized in Cogen v. United
    Search
  23. of any suppression motions other than those explicitly authorized by the language of Rule 41(e). Centracchio v. Garrity
    Search
  24. Benes v. Canary
    Search
  25. and the Ninth Circuit refused an application for prerogative writs. Rodgers v. United
    Search
  26. id. at 684 note. See also Eastus v. Bradshaw
    Search
  27. on the subject expresses doubts as to the validity Page 369 U. S. 129 of its precedents. United States v. Murphy
    Search
  28. of appeal an instrument of harassment, jeopardizing by delay the availability of other essential evidence. See Rodgers v. United
    Search
  29. Grant v. United
    Search
  30. Government has no later right to appeal when and if the loss of evidence forces dismissal of its case. United States v. Pack
    Search
  31. Umbriaco v. United
    Search
  32. Government is no more disadvantaged than in the case of an adverse ruling on the evidence during trial. United States v. Rosenwasser
    Search
  33. denies the Government the right of appeal in criminal cases save as expressly authorized by statute. United States v. Sanges
    Search
  34. Carroll v. United
    Search
  35. not relevant to our problem. Allowance of any further right must be sought from Congress, and not this Court. Carroll v. United
    Search
  36. finality even for purposes of appealability. Presentations before a United States Commissioner, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  37. States, 282 U. S. 344 , 282 U. S. 352 -354, as well as before a grand jury, Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  38. Cogen v. United
    Search
  39. Carroll v. United
    Search
  40. would assign independence to the suppression order because rendered in a different district from that of trial. Dier v. Banton
    Search
  41. order by a federal bankruptcy court permitting delivery of a bankrupt's papers to state prosecuting officials. Cf. Rea v. United
    Search
  42. U. S. 381 . There is a decision in the Second Circuit, United States v. Klapholz
    Search
  43. United States v. Lester
    Search
  44. Together with No. 93, United States v. Koenig
    Search
  45. Perlman v. United
    Search
  46. U. S. 465 . See also Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  47. See Cogen v. United
    Search
  48. Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  49. Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  50. thus separated from the lawfulness of the taking, the Court has denied independent review to transfer orders. Catlin v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial