Citation network
Harris Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 06, 1965
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
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 382 U.S. 162 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 382 U.S. 162 (1965) Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
a serious threat to orderly procedure, is punishable only after notice and hearing, as provided by Rule 42(b). Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
the opinion of the Court. This case brings back to us a question resolved by a closely divided Court in Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
to orderly procedure that instant and summary punishment, as distinguished from due and deliberate procedures ( Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. We start from the premise long ago stated in Anderson v. DunnSearch
-
which, as Mr. Justice Brandeis said in Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
by Rule 42(a) where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself. We overrule Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Nye v. UnitedSearch
-
Cammer v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
We have confirmed this on more than one occasion, e.g., Offutt v. UnitedSearch
-
Chief Justice Taft said in Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
cited for testimonial contempt before the grand jury were given hearings under Rule 42(b). E.g., United States v. CastaldiSearch
-
United States v. TramuntiSearch
-
United States v. ShillitaniSearch
-
United States v. PappadioSearch
-
Rule 42(a) and Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, was, as the Court says, resolved in Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
States was reaffirmed and followed in Levine v. UnitedSearch
-
the overruling of Brown are quite unlike those involved in the overruling that occurred in Swift & Co., Inc. v. WickhamSearch
-
evidence, the proceeding would have been conducted upon notice and hearing in conformity with Rule 42(b). See Carlson v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 359 U. S. 41 , and Levine v. UnitedSearch
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CurcioSearch
-
Lopiparo v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WeinbergSearch
-
F.2d 394, 396 (C.A.2d Cir.). For the earlier practice at common law, see People ex rel. Phelps v. FancherSearch
-
Hackley v. KellySearch
-
Heard v. PierceSearch
-
See note 5 of the Court's opinion supra, p. 167. United States v. CastaldiSearch
-
United States v. PapadioSearch
-
See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
Yates v. UnitedSearch
-
Nilva v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Anderson v. DunnSearch
-
Nye v. UnitedSearch
-
Offutt v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., United States v. CastaldiSearch
-
Levine v. UnitedSearch
-
Swift & Co., Inc. v. WickhamSearch
-
See Carlson v. UnitedSearch
-
and Levine v. UnitedSearch
-
Phelps v. FancherSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial