Citation network
United States Vs. Kras
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 10, 1973
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
-
U.S. 434 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. KrasSearch
-
U.S. 434 (1973) United States v. KrasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that are a precondition to discharge in such a proceeding. The District Court, relying primarily on Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
beyond bankruptcy, of the bankrupt's obligation to pay the fees. The court rested its decision primarily upon Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U.S. 960, 961. Thus, although a denial of certiorari normally carries no implication or inference, Chessman v. TeetsSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
we have recognized the fundamental importance of these interests under our Constitution. See, for example, Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
so recognized by the enactment of the Bankruptcy Act, does not rise to the same constitutional level. See Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
path to relief. Boddie's emphasis on exclusivity finds no counterpart in the bankrupt's situation. See Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
the lofty requirement of a compelling governmental interest before they may be significantly regulated. See Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Neither does it touch upon what have been said to be the suspect criteria of race, nationality, or alienage. Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
U. S. 375 (1971). Instead, bankruptcy legislation is in the area of economics and social welfare. See Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
standard, in measuring the propriety of Congress' classification, is that of rational justification. Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
fee requirement is readily apparent. Congressional power over bankruptcy, of course, is plenary and exclusive. Kalb v. FeuersteinSearch
-
In re Ottman, 336 F.Supp. 746, 748 (ED Wis. 1972). See O'Brien v. TrevethanSearch
-
to promote and not to defeat the purpose of making the bankruptcy system financially self-sufficient. Cf. Lindsey v. NormetSearch
-
In re Read, No. Bk 71-826 (WDNY 1971). See O'Brien v. TrevethanSearch
-
the Court's opinion. The painstaking and precise delineation by Mr. Justice Harlan of the interests involved in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
and moved for leave to proceed without paying the fee. The District Court held that, under the doctrine of Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
See Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
we join MR. JUSTICE STEWART's dissenting opinion, we do so with this explicit statement of reasons. We said in Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, in which I have joined, makes clear the majority's failure to distinguish this case from Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
majority does challenge it. The District Judge properly accepted the factual allegations as true. See, e.g., Poller v. ColumbiaSearch
-
First National Bank of Arizona v. CitiesSearch
-
for any proposition impairs the vitality of the discretion we exercise in controlling the cases we hear. See Brown v. AllenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. KrasSearch
-
Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
See Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
See Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
See Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
See O'Brien v. TrevethanSearch
-
Cf. Lindsey v. NormetSearch
-
of Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial