Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Withrow Vs. Larkin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 16, 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

70 entries 6 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Richardson Vs. Perales US Supreme Court · May 03, 1971
  2. Gibson Vs. Berryhill US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
  3. Tumey Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  4. Taylor Vs. Hayes US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1974
  5. Ungar Vs. Sarafite US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1964
  6. Gagnon Vs. Scarpelli US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
  7. U.S. 35 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Withrow v. Larkin
    Search
  8. U.S. 35 (1975) Withrow v. Larkin
    Search
  9. declared the statute unconstitutional and erroneously enjoined the Board from applying it against all licensees. Mayo v. Lakeland
    Search
  10. Appellants correctly assert that the District Court's initial judgment conflicted with this Court's holding in Mayo v. Lakeland
    Search
  11. Cf. Brown v. Chote
    Search
  12. U. S. 136 (1955). This applies to administrative agencies which adjudicate as well as to courts. Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  13. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  14. adequately implemented. Very similar claims have been squarely rejected in prior decisions of this Court. In FTC v. Cement
    Search
  15. further hearings that were required when reviewing courts held that the evidence had been erroneously excluded. NLRB v. Donnelly
    Search
  16. preside over the ensuing contempt proceedings. The accepted rule is to the contrary. Page 421 U. S. 54 Ungar v. Sarafite
    Search
  17. Nilva v. United
    Search
  18. United States v. Morgan
    Search
  19. Daly v. Natural
    Search
  20. Maroles v. State
    Search
  21. having his license temporarily suspended by such an agency is not irrational, and we will not disturb it. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  22. See Schmidt v. Lessard
    Search
  23. Gunn v. University
    Search
  24. of the constitutional challenge to the statutes. See Brown v. Chote
    Search
  25. Mayo v. Lakeland
    Search
  26. Ward v. Village
    Search
  27. U. S. 510 (1927). Cf. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental
    Search
  28. Pickering v. Board
    Search
  29. of Education, 391 U. S. 563 , 391 U. S. 578 -579, n. 2 (1968). Cf. Ungar v. Sarate
    Search
  30. Appeals touching upon this question of bias arising from a combination of functions are also instructive. In Pangburn v. CAB
    Search
  31. Id. at 358. See also Duffield v. Charleston
    Search
  32. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. FTC
    Search
  33. Intercontinental Industries v. American
    Search
  34. FTC v. Cinderella
    Search
  35. Skelly Oil Co. v. FPC
    Search
  36. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. FTC
    Search
  37. R. A. Holman & Co. v. SEC
    Search
  38. present in the record before us in this litigation, and we need not pass upon their validity. In American Cyanimid Co. v. FTC
    Search
  39. investigating many of the same facts and issues before the Federal Trade Commission for consideration. In Texaco, Inc. v. FTC
    Search
  40. reached a decision as to matters pending before that Commission. See also Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC
    Search
  41. U.S.App.D.C. 152, 158-161, 425 F.2d 583, 589-592 (1970). Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC
    Search
  42. participated as an employee in the investigation of charges pending before the Commission. In Trans World Airlines v. CAB
    Search
  43. a brief in behalf of one of the parties in the proceedings prior to assuming membership on the Board. See also King v. Caesar
    Search
  44. Del.1974). For state court decisions dealing with issues similar to those involved in this case, see Koelling v. Board
    Search
  45. State v. Board
    Search
  46. Board of Medical Examiners v. Steward
    Search
  47. Md. 574, 102 A.2d 248 (1954). See also LeBow v. Optometry
    Search
  48. Kachian v. Optometry
    Search
  49. Appellee also relies upon statements made by the Court in Pickering v. Board
    Search
  50. investigative and adjudicative functions in the same proceeding was raised, but did not require answering, in Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial