Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Murphy Brothers, Inc. Vs. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1999

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

27 entries 1 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Mississippi Publishing Corp. Vs. Murphree US Supreme Court · Jan 02, 1946
  2. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti
    Search
  3. Pipe Stringing, Inc. - 526 U.S. 344 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Murphy Brothers, Inc. V. Michetti
    Search
  4. may not exercise power over a party the 345 complaint names as defendant. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf
    Search
  5. provide a clue. Cf., e. g., Potter v. McCauley
    Search
  6. c) has been interpreted to afford the defendant at least 20 days after service of process to respond. See Silva v. Madison
    Search
  7. F.3d 1368 ,1376-1377. In Silva, the Seventh Circuit distinguished its earlier decision in Roe v. O'Donohue
    Search
  8. b),2 we granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 960 (1998). 2 Compare Reece v. Wal-Mart
    Search
  9. Roe v. O'Donohue
    Search
  10. with Bowman v. Weeks
    Search
  11. Baratt v. Phoenix
    Search
  12. brought into litigation by official service is the contemporary counterpart to that writ. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington
    Search
  13. ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant. See Omn i Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf
    Search
  14. provide a clue. Cf. Potter v. McCauley
    Search
  15. sensibly has been interpreted to afford the defendant at least 20 days after service of process to respond. See Silva v. Madison
    Search
  16. Id., at 1376. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished an earlier decision, Roe v. O'Donohue
    Search
  17. s practice of strictly construing removal and similar jurisdictional statutes. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets
    Search
  18. Syllabus Murphy Brothers, Inc. V. Michetti
    Search
  19. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf
    Search
  20. Potter v. McCauley
    Search
  21. See Silva v. Madison
    Search
  22. Compare Reece v. Wal-Mart
    Search
  23. Bowman v. Weeks
    Search
  24. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington
    Search
  25. Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf
    Search
  26. Cf. Potter v. McCauley
    Search
  27. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales