Citation network
Muniz Vs. Hoffman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1975
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. 454 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Muniz v. HoffmanSearch
-
U.S. 454 (1975) Muniz v. HoffmanSearch
-
Tidewater Oil Page 422 U. S. 459 Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
MacEvoy Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
passed in 1935, or by the Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947. Yet those Acts, expressly or impliedly, Boys Markets, Inc. v. RetailSearch
-
provision by rule or statute, jury trial was not required in the case of either civil or criminal contempt. See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the Norris-LaGuardia Act. United States v. MineSearch
-
Act authorized the Labor Board, an agency of the United States, to seek in a United States court. Cf. United States v. MineSearch
-
Holy Trinity Church v. UnitedSearch
-
without any support in the legislative history of that revision is insupportable. As this Court said in United States v. RyderSearch
-
The general rule announced in Ryder was applied by this Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
b), which this Court had held to govern venue irrespective of a general revenue provision, Stonite Products Co. v. MelvinSearch
-
Page 422 U. S. 473 In Tidewater Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 409 U. S. 162 , quoting Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
and the Sixth Amendment. Green v. UnitedSearch
-
and federal courts have the constitutional power to punish any criminal contempt without a jury trial. United States v. BarnettSearch
-
U. S. 681 (1964), and Cheff v. SchneckenbergSearch
-
presaged a change in this rule. The constitutional doctrine which emerged from later decisions such as Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
and Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
would be required to empanel juries, a result that would certainly represent a novel procedure, see United States v. BarnettSearch
-
was Congress' response to the Court's decision in United States v. MineSearch
-
The Court's analysis in Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
Madden v. GrainSearch
-
Schauffler v. LocalSearch
-
l ) proceeding). See United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. BangorSearch
-
NLRB v. RedSearch
-
Mitchell v. BarbeeSearch
-
See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
fines and imprisonment, the response of Justices McReynolds and Butler in District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
This construction is consistent with the remark in United States v. MineSearch
-
E.g., Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 147 , 395 U. S. 159 -160 (1969) (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., dissenting). See also Johnson v. NebraskaSearch
-
As noted in my dissenting opinion in Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
the offense. Under the Court's current formulation, the penalty is of controlling significance. See Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
that any ambiguity concerning criminal statutes is to be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. BassSearch
-
Rewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
that individual expression of opinion is without significant weight in the interpretation of the statute. McCaughn v. HersheySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial