Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cheff Vs. Schnackenberg

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 06, 1966

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

67 entries 6 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Lawton Vs. Steele US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1894
  2. District of Columbia Vs. Colts US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1930
  3. Fisher Vs. Pace US Supreme Court · Feb 07, 1949
  4. United States Vs. Gradwell US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1917
  5. United States Vs. Barnett US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1964
  6. District of Columbia Vs. Clawans US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1937
  7. U.S. 373 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  8. U.S. 373 (1966) Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  9. rather than criminal, is irrelevant, since a jury trial is not required in civil contempt proceedings. Shillitani v. United
    Search
  10. order of the court, not that of the FTC. P. 384 U. S. 378 . 2. Even assuming, contrary to United States v. Barnett
    Search
  11. of the Constitution and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Green v. United
    Search
  12. CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE FORTAS join. This is a companion case to No. 412, Shillitani v. United
    Search
  13. States, and No. 442, Pappadio v. United
    Search
  14. F.2d 548. Cheff and Holland petitioned for certiorari. We denied Holland's petition, Holland Furnace Co. v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  15. of imprisonment of six months is constitutionally permissible under Article III and the Sixth Amendment. Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  16. order, Holland Furnace Co. v. FTC
    Search
  17. rather than criminal, in nature. This may be true where the purpose of the proceeding is remedial. Cf. Shillitani v. United
    Search
  18. Page 384 U. S. 378 (1964 ed.). See e.g., cases cited in United States v. Barnett
    Search
  19. Only two Terms ago, we held to the contrary in United States v. Barnett
    Search
  20. to prosecute a petty offense, which under our decisions does not require a jury trial. Over 75 years ago, in Callan v. Wilson
    Search
  21. a jury trial is not required. And as late as 1937, the Court reiterated in District of Columbia v. Clawans
    Search
  22. Natal v. Louisiana
    Search
  23. Schick v. United
    Search
  24. joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, took the position in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Barnett
    Search
  25. Page 384 U. S. 380 Since Cheff received a sentence of six months' imprisonment ( see District of Columbia v. Clawans
    Search
  26. contempt, an offense sui generis, does not, of itself, warrant treatment otherwise ( cf. District of Columbia v. Colts
    Search
  27. one. Ante at 384 U. S. 356 . However, as recently as 1958, this Court, in Green v. United
    Search
  28. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth
    Search
  29. Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson
    Search
  30. Gompers v. Bucks
    Search
  31. Gompers v. United
    Search
  32. Myers v. United
    Search
  33. Michaelson v. United
    Search
  34. Offutt v. United
    Search
  35. with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting. I I adhere to the view expressed in the dissents in Green v. United
    Search
  36. States, 356 U. S. 165 , 356 U. S. 193 , and United States v. Barnett
    Search
  37. notion that the trial of a petty offense could be conducted without a jury was first expounded by this Court in Callan v. Wilson
    Search
  38. held that the offense charged -- conspiracy -- was not among them. Id. at 127 U. S. 555 . In Natal v. Louisiana
    Search
  39. And in Schick v. United
    Search
  40. petty offenses and those more serious transgressions for which a jury trial is required. In District of Columbia v. Colts
    Search
  41. Id. at 282 U. S. 73 . The most recent case is District of Columbia v. Clawans
    Search
  42. as District of Columbia v. Colts
    Search
  43. a power which has been denied the federal judiciary since the beginning of our republic. See United States v. Hudson
    Search
  44. Green v. United
    Search
  45. of historical materials in Barnett has been subjected to some criticism ( see, e.g., Tefft, United States v. Barnett
    Search
  46. Brief for the United States 27-58 and Appendix, passim, Harris v. United
    Search
  47. Brown v. United
    Search
  48. Piemonte v. United
    Search
  49. Reina v. United
    Search
  50. Collins v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial