Citation network
Hagans Vs. Lavine
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1974
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. 528 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
U.S. 528 (1974) Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
cause of action alleged was not so patently without merit s to justify a dismissal for want of jurisdiction, Bell v HoodSearch
-
Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
N.Y. Dept. of Social Services v. DublinoSearch
-
Hannis Distilling Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
McGilvra v. RossSearch
-
for the inference that the question sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.' Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
insubstantiality,' for this purpose, has been equated with such concepts as 'essentially fictitious,' Bailey v. PattersonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
obviously frivolous,' Hannis Distilling Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Ex parte Poresky, supra, at 290 U. S. 32 , quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Levering Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSearch
-
principles affecting the power of a federal court to adjudicate constitutional claims has been questioned, Bell v. HoodSearch
-
is essentially the authority conferred by Congress to decide a given type of case one way or the other. The Fair v. KohlerSearch
-
Page 415 U. S. 539 on whether the question was too insubstantial for consideration. In Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Id. at 397 U. S. 487 . See Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
San Antonio School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
under the Equal Protection Clause. We think the admonition of Bell v. HoodSearch
-
As was the case in Bell v. HoodSearch
-
Oneida Indian Nation v. CountySearch
-
decided first, and the former not reached, if the statutory claim was dispositive. California Human Resources Dept. v. JavaSearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
by a three-judge court, but the statutory claim was within the jurisdiction of a single district judge. Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
without convening a three-judge court -- may appear at odds with some of our prior decisions. See, e.g., Engineers v. ChicagoSearch
-
Avocado Growers Page 415 U. S. 544 v. JacobsenSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
supra, at 382 U. S. 128 , 382 U. S. 129 (citations omitted). In Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
of three federal judges in a matter that was not required to be determined by a three-judge court. See Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
require a single-judge district court to defer to a three-judge panel, which, in view of what we have said in Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
supra, could then merely pass the statutory claim back to the single judge. See Kelly v. IllinoisSearch
-
Chicago, Duluth Georgian Bay Transit Co. v. NimsSearch
-
Doe v. LavineSearch
-
Bryant v. CarlesonSearch
-
Norton v. RichardsonSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. JacobsenSearch
-
claim, all of this, apparently, as an exercise of the discretion which the District Court, under Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
follow that other considerations may warrant adjudication, rather than dismissal of pendent state claims. In Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
N.Y. Dept. of Social Services v. DublinoSearch
-
The Fair v. KohlerSearch
-
In Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
See Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
San Antonio School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
of Bell v. HoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial