Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Williams Vs. Austrian

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1947

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

53 entries 10 linked 43 unlinked
Show
  1. Babbitt Vs. Dutcher US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1910
  2. Lathrop Vs. Drake US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  3. Smith Vs. Mason US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1871
  4. Bryan Vs. Bernheimer US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1901
  5. Mueller Vs. Nugent US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1902
    Distinguished
  6. Whitney Vs. Wenman US Supreme Court · May 29, 1905
  7. White Vs. Schloerb US Supreme Court · May 28, 1900
  8. Schumacher Vs. Beeler US Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1934
    Relied / Followed
  9. Kelley Vs. Gill US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1917
  10. Marshall Vs. Knox US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1872
  11. U.S. 642 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Austrian
    Search
  12. U.S. 642 (1947) Williams v. Austrian
    Search
  13. not relate solely to summary proceedings, but includes plenary Page 331 U. S. 643 suits as well. Lathrop v. Drake
    Search
  14. U. S. 516 , followed. Bardes v. Hawarden
    Search
  15. Bank, 178 U. S. 524 , and Schumacher v. Beeler
    Search
  16. the jurisdiction of the district courts in this manner and, we think, contrary to the statements later made in Bardes v. Hawarden
    Search
  17. Bardes v. Hawarden
    Search
  18. as being confined to summary matters rested to a great extent upon a reading of Lathrop v. Drake
    Search
  19. The conflict was resolved in Schumacher v. Beeler
    Search
  20. were unnecessary, and, in any event, were based upon the similar statements made in Bardes v. Hawarden
    Search
  21. Bankruptcy Act dealing with the distinctive and special proceedings in corporate reorganization. Cf. Continental Bank v. Rock
    Search
  22. The investigation was made pursuant to the decision in Committee for Holders v. Kent
    Search
  23. Sherman v. Bingham
    Search
  24. Goodall v. Tuttle
    Search
  25. The requirement of plenary proceedings, though not expressly appearing in the Act, was well recognized. Marshall v. Knox
    Search
  26. and Sherman v. Bingham
    Search
  27. been quite fully and satisfactorily discussed by a member of this court in the first circuit in the case of Shearman v. Bingham
    Search
  28. First Nat. Bank v. Title
    Search
  29. Louisville Trust Co. v. Marx
    Search
  30. courts had concurrent jurisdiction of suits to recover property fraudulently or preferentially transferred. Bardes v. Bank
    Search
  31. amounts to a denial of justice, the calendars of the State courts being years behindhand, while, growing out of Bardes v. Bank
    Search
  32. Harris v. First
    Search
  33. Kelly v. Gill
    Search
  34. Lynch v. Bronson
    Search
  35. Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox
    Search
  36. Matthew v. Coppin
    Search
  37. Coyle v. Duncan
    Search
  38. Operators' Piano Co. v. First
    Search
  39. De Friece v. Bryant
    Search
  40. McEldowney v. Card
    Search
  41. Beeler v. Schumacher
    Search
  42. Toledo Fence & Post Co. v. Lyons
    Search
  43. and cases arising under the 1898 Act and decided before Bardes v. Hawarden
    Search
  44. F. 139, 140. See also Lowenstein v. Reikes
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Austrian
    Search
  46. and Schumacher v. Beeler
    Search
  47. of Lathrop v. Drake
    Search
  48. Cf. Continental Bank v. Rock
    Search
  49. Holders v. Kent
    Search
  50. of Shearman v. Bingham
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial