Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Peacock Vs. Thomas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 21, 1996

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

44 entries 2 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. H. C. Cook Co. Vs. Beecher US Supreme Court · May 16, 1910
    Relied / Followed
  2. Krippendorf Vs. Hyde US Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1884
  3. U.S. 349 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Peacock V. Thomas
    Search
  4. other supplementary proceedings involving third parties are inapposite. This case is governed by H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher
    Search
  5. against Tru-Tech only. Thomas v. Tru-Tech
    Search
  6. District Court rejected the claim against him. 2 Compare 39 F.3d 493 (CA4 1994) (case below), Argento v. Melrose
    Search
  7. Park, 838 F.2d 1483 (CA7 1988), Skevofilax v. Quigley
    Search
  8. F.2d 378 (CA3) (en bane), cert. denied, 481 U. S. 1029 (1987), and Blackburn Truck Lines, Inc. v. Francis
    Search
  9. F.2d 730 (CA9 1984), with Sandlin v. Corporate
    Search
  10. Interiors Inc., 972 F.2d 1212 (CAW 1992), and Berry v. McLemore
    Search
  11. provision of ERISA that provides for imposing liability for an extant ERISA judgment against a third party. See Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  12. Mertens v. Hewitt
    Search
  13. Kokkonen v. Guardian
    Search
  14. his burden of demonstrating that this suit falls within either cate- 4 This case is not at all like Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  15. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
    Search
  16. have jurisdiction over a case or controversy before it may assert jurisdiction over ancillary claims. See Mine Workers v. Gibbs
    Search
  17. Riggs v. Johnson
    Search
  18. attachment, mandamus, garnishment, and the prejudgment avoidance of fraudulent conveyances. See, e. g., Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  19. Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania
    Search
  20. Dewey v. West
    Search
  21. Labette County Comm'rs v. United
    Search
  22. on a person not already liable for that judgment. Indeed, we rejected an attempt to do so in H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher
    Search
  23. for Thomas, suggests that the proceeding below was jurisdictionally indistinguishable from Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania
    Search
  24. Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A., 339 U. S. 684 (1950), Dewey v. West
    Search
  25. Fairmont Gas Coal Co., 123 U. S. 329 (1887), Labette County Comm'rs v. United
    Search
  26. States ex rel. Moulton, 112 U. S. 217 (1884), and Riggs v. Johnson
    Search
  27. than that of the prior decree. Dugas v. American
    Search
  28. Way man v. Southard
    Search
  29. exercised that control to defeat satisfaction of the judgment. In substance the Court so held in Riggs v. Johnson
    Search
  30. County, 6 Wall. 166 (1868), and in Labette County Comm'rs v. United
    Search
  31. with Riggs and Labette. I am also persuaded that the Court's reliance on H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher
    Search
  32. Syllabus Peacock V. Thomas
    Search
  33. Thomas v. Tru-Tech
    Search
  34. Argento v. Melrose
    Search
  35. Skevofilax v. Quigley
    Search
  36. and Blackburn Truck Lines, Inc. v. Francis
    Search
  37. Sandlin v. Corporate
    Search
  38. and Berry v. McLemore
    Search
  39. See Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  40. Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  41. See Mine Workers v. Gibbs
    Search
  42. Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  43. and Riggs v. Johnson
    Search
  44. Dugas v. American
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial