Citation network
WheeldIn Vs. Wheeler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 03, 1963
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 647 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Wheeldin v. WheelerSearch
-
U.S. 647 (1963) Wheeldin v. WheelerSearch
-
in the sense of Bell v. HoodSearch
-
opinion (280 F.2d 293) that, on the face of the complaint, the federal court had jurisdiction. As we stated in Bell v. HoodSearch
-
Bock v. PerkinsSearch
-
nor was the subpoena used to cite him for contempt. Cf. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Hatahley v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 351 U. S. 173 . There is much discussion in the briefs of Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
brought against a federal official in the District of Columbia. And the immunity doctrine of that case and Howard v. LyonsSearch
-
of common law rights, it is perhaps needless to state that we are not in the free-wheeling days antedating Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 64 . The instances where we have created federal common law are few and restricted. In Clearfield Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., p. 318 U. S. 367 . But even that rule was qualified in Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. ParnellSearch
-
U. S. 29 . In Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
that power. Congress Page 373 U. S. 652 has not done here what was done in Textile Workers Union of America v. LincolnSearch
-
Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 257 ), or immunity from suit. See Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
is not for us to fill any hiatus Congress has left in this area. No question of pendent jurisdiction, as in Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
applies to federal officers ( compare Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
Collins v. HardymanSearch
-
The other cases cited are singularly inapposite. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSearch
-
a liability created by a federal statute, and the question was what remedies the federal courts should apply. Howard v. LyonsSearch
-
duty as a federal officer, and that, therefore, he was immune from suit by reason of the principles announced in Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
the United States, appearing as counsel for the respondent, candidly admits that the Court of Appeals misapplied Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
Colpoys v. GatesSearch
-
Kozlowski v. FerraraSearch
-
of legal process. Mayer v. WalterSearch
-
National Surety Co. v. PageSearch
-
Petherbridge v. BellSearch
-
Va. 822, 132 S.E. 683, and so does abuse of the judicial subpoena power, Dishaw v. WadleighSearch
-
Y.S. 207. The congressional Page 373 U. S. 656 subpoena is no less mandatory than the judicial, see Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 178 , 354 U. S. 187 -188, no less a placing of governmental compulsion upon the recipient, cf. Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial