Citation network
Lamb Vs. Cramer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 14, 1932
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. 217 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Lamb v. CramerSearch
-
U.S. 217 (1932) Lamb v. CramerSearch
-
might be had against Lamb either by bill in equity, as was done by the supplemental bill filed by the receiver in Lamb v. SchmittSearch
-
with respect to it to the extent that it might adjudicate the rights of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Utah v. UnitedSearch
-
Mellen v. MolineSearch
-
Warren v. MarcySearch
-
but did not forestall it. His receipt and diversion of the property, which was then in gremio legis, see Metcalf v. BarkerSearch
-
Pierce v. UnitedSearch
-
of court which might be proceeded against civilly. Merrimack Page 285 U. S. 220 River Savings Bank v. ClaySearch
-
Clay v. WatersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
nature, to punish for criminal contempt, and hence the order dismissing the petition was not appealable, United States v. SangesSearch
-
Toledo Newspaper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
suit. The prayer of the petition for relief, which is determinative of the nature of the proceeding, see Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
which determines whether the proceeding is for Page 285 U. S. 221 civil or criminal contempt. Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
Doyle v. LondonSearch
-
to the receiver, compensation for its taking. A proceeding to secure such relief is civil in its nature. See Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
Leman v. Krentler-ArnoldSearch
-
The decree of the district court dismissing the petition finally adjudicated the rights asserted by it. Shaffer v. CarterSearch
-
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. CurtisSearch
-
entered, so long as it remained unsatisfied, and the appeal was not dependent upon an appeal from the decree. See Root v. WoolworthSearch
-
Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
Utah v. UnitedSearch
-
below was not precluded from reversing for errors appearing on the face of the record, even though unassigned. McBride v. NealSearch
-
United States v. TennesseeSearch
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson Farm Loan Co. v. McManigalSearch
-
Grafton v. MeiklehamSearch
-
Jones v. PettingillSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lamb v. CramerSearch
-
River Savings Bank v. ClaySearch
-
See Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
See Root v. WoolworthSearch
-
McBride v. NealSearch
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial