Citation network
Rfc Vs. Prudence Securities Advisory Group
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 06, 1941
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
- Relied / Followed
-
RFC v. PrudenceSearch
-
Securities Advisory Group - 311 U.S. 579 (1941) U.S. Supreme Court RFC v. PrudenceSearch
-
Securities Advisory Group, 311 U.S. 579 (1941) Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. PrudenceSearch
-
to imperil a substantial right which has been granted. P. 311 U. S. 582 . 5. Where, subsequent to London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
F.2d 524, and prior to Dickinson Industrial Site v. CowanSearch
-
Page 311 U. S. 580 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
or more) could be had as a matter of right. London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
Subsequent to the decision in the London case and prior to the decision of Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
While the matter was under advisement in the Circuit Court of Appeals, we decided Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
in administration of the Bankruptcy Act and of the asserted substantial conflict of the decision below with Baxter v. SavingsSearch
-
Bank, 92 F.2d 404, and Wilson v. AllianceSearch
-
here. As respondents maintain, that is the fair implication from our conclusion in Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
Price v. SpokaneSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
scope of review is not affected, to disregard such an irregularity in the interests of substantial justice. Cf. Taylor v. VossSearch
-
its discretion on the allowance of their appeals by reason of their erroneous reliance upon the permanency of London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
supra. This conclusion does not do violence to Shulman v. Wilson-SheridanSearch
-
Hotel Co., 301 U. S. 172 . As we indicated in Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
to comply with statutory requirements, however, is not necessarily a jurisdictional defect. Cf. Alaska Packers Assn. v. PillsburySearch
-
requirement, and that the practice followed in this case cannot be reduced to a mere procedural irregularity. Farrar v. ChurchillSearch
-
Old Nick Williams Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Shulman v. Wilson-SheridanSearch
-
court, the proper procedure was not settled, and petitioners were misled by the decision of the court below in London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
judgment is justified by our broad power to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. Watts, Watts & Co. v. UnioneSearch
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSearch
-
rare instances, such as the case at bar, this power is appropriate for curing even jurisdictional defects. Cf. Rorick v. CommissionersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court RFC v. PrudenceSearch
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. PrudenceSearch
-
London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
Dickinson Industrial Site v. CowanSearch
-
of the Court. Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
of Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. CowanSearch
-
Baxter v. SavingsSearch
-
and Wilson v. AllianceSearch
-
Cf. Taylor v. VossSearch
-
of London v. O'DoughertySearch
-
Cf. Alaska Packers Assn. v. PillsburySearch
-
Watts, Watts & Co. v. UnioneSearch
-
Cf. Rorick v. CommissionersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial