Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pendergast Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 04, 1943

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

32 entries 2 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Brown Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1912
  2. United States Vs. Goldman US Supreme Court · May 14, 1928
  3. Pendergast v. United
    Search
  4. States - 317 U.S. 412 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Pendergast v. United
    Search
  5. States, 317 U.S. 412 (1943) Pendergast v. United
    Search
  6. A grand jury investigation followed in which the rest of the sordid story was unfolded. See United States v. Pendergast
    Search
  7. as construed by Nye v. United
    Search
  8. in question was a contempt, there can be no doubt that it was a criminal contempt as defined by our decisions. See Nye v. United
    Search
  9. It was held in Gompers v. United
    Search
  10. United States v. Goldman
    Search
  11. Gompers v. United
    Search
  12. of the court is apparent. Adams v. Woods
    Search
  13. of the court. Statutes of limitations normally begin to run when the crime is complete. See United States v. Irvine
    Search
  14. statute of limitations, of course, may permit a rogue to escape. Yet, as Chief Justice Marshall observed in Adams v. Woods
    Search
  15. should receive favored treatment. But it is said that the contrary conclusion is to be inferred from Gompers v. United
    Search
  16. U. S. 314 . That is a procedural problem peculiar to direct contempts in the face of the court ( see Cooke v. United
    Search
  17. the three-year period, continued thereafter. Accordingly, it is argued, by analogy to such cases as United States v. Kissel
    Search
  18. Hyde v. United
    Search
  19. without a jury. In the present case, as in prosecutions for contempt for willful violations of injunctions ( Gompers v. United
    Search
  20. or if May 29, 1939, the date when the court directed the inquiry, be deemed the important one ( Gompers v. United
    Search
  21. Together with No. 186, O'Malley v. United
    Search
  22. States, and No. 187, McCormack v. United
    Search
  23. U.S. Supreme Court Pendergast v. United
    Search
  24. See United States v. Pendergast
    Search
  25. Nye v. United
    Search
  26. See Nye v. United
    Search
  27. Adams v. Woods
    Search
  28. See United States v. Irvine
    Search
  29. Cooke v. United
    Search
  30. United States v. Kissel
    Search
  31. O'Malley v. United
    Search
  32. McCormack v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial