Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hohn Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1998

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

71 entries 8 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Nixon Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  2. Payne Vs. Tennessee US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1991
  3. United States Vs. Gaudin US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1995
  4. Lynce Vs. Mathis US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1997
  5. United States Vs. Ferreira US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  6. Kawaauhau Vs. Geiger US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1998
  7. Houston Vs. Lack US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1988
  8. House Vs. Mayo US Supreme Court · Feb 05, 1945
  9. Hohn v. United
    Search
  10. States - 524 U.S. 236 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Hohn V. United
    Search
  11. under this Court's intervening decision in Bailey v. United
    Search
  12. as used in a statute, means a court proceeding, suit, or action, Blyew v. United
    Search
  13. federal judge's actions performed in an administrative, as opposed to a judicial, capacity, see, e. g., United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  14. and Automobile Workers v. Scofield
    Search
  15. purposes, see, e. g., Kawaauhau v. Geiger
    Search
  16. limitation on certiorari review of denials of appealability certificate applications, see, e. g., Bates v. United
    Search
  17. important and meritorious claims such as Hohn's. Although the decision directly conflicts with the portion of House v. Mayo
    Search
  18. counts. Hohn did not challenge the instruction in his direct appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Hohn
    Search
  19. c)(1) required active employment of the firearm. Proximity and accessibility alone were not sufficient. Bailey v. United
    Search
  20. the courts of appeals. Nixon v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  21. Blyew v. United
    Search
  22. United States v. Apker
    Search
  23. capacity. When judges perform administrative functions, their decisions are not subject to our review. United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  24. see also Gordon v. United
    Search
  25. U. S., at 24. We reached a similar conclusion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  26. of law sufficient to bring the case within the collateral order doctrine announced in Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  27. see also United States v. Nixon
    Search
  28. The filing of a proper notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Torres v. Oakland
    Search
  29. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  30. the requirements for an extraordinary writ and without suggesting our lack of jurisdiction to do so. E. g., Houston v. Lack
    Search
  31. Fallen v. United
    Search
  32. Leishman v. Associated
    Search
  33. of Appeals in proceedings to review the decision of an administra- 248 tive agency. Automobile Workers v. Scofield
    Search
  34. have long treated appeals of dismissals for improper venue as cases in the courts of appeals, see, e. g., Radzanower v. Touche
    Search
  35. Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum
    Search
  36. Schnell v. Peter
    Search
  37. Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra
    Search
  38. Mis- 249 sissippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree
    Search
  39. those cases, however, was the interlocutory nature of the appeal, not the absence of a proper case. Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser
    Search
  40. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  41. We are reluctant to adopt a construction making another statutory provision superfluous. See, e. g., Kawaauhau v. Geiger
    Search
  42. United States v. Menasche
    Search
  43. instance would have been just as explicit in denying it in the other, were that its intention. See, e. g., Bates v. United
    Search
  44. presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion''') (quoting Russello v. United
    Search
  45. remedies. Our decision, we must acknowledge, is in direct conflict with the portion of our decision in House v. Mayo
    Search
  46. Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  47. less constrained to follow precedent where, as here, the opinion was rendered without full briefing or argument. Gray v. Mississippi
    Search
  48. U. S. 648 , 651, n. 1 (1987) (questioning the precedential value of Davis v. Georgia
    Search
  49. a rule of procedure that does not alter primary conduct. And what is more, the rule of procedure announced in House v. Mayo
    Search
  50. these examples are several noteworthy decisions which resolved significant issues of federal law. See, e. g., Allen v. Hardy
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial