Citation network
Penfield Co. Vs. Sec
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 31, 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
-
U.S. 585 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Penfield Co. v. SECSearch
-
U.S. 585 (1947) Penfield Company of California v. SecuritiesSearch
-
of the Commission for enforcement of its subpoena posed a problem in civil, not criminal, contempt. United States v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 590 It is the nature of the relief asked that is determinative of the nature of the proceeding. Lamb v. CramerSearch
-
in which the United States was a party and in which it was seeking to vindicate the public interest. See Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Stove & Range Co., supra, p. 221 U. S. 442 , and remedy is one for civil contempt. United States v. UnitedSearch
-
McCrone v. UnitedSearch
-
interest, but as coercive sanctions to compel the contemnor to do what the law made it his duty to do. See Doyle v. LondonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Fox v. CapitalSearch
-
And, in absence of a basis for saying that its demand exceeds lawful limits ( Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSearch
-
elements, the criminal aspect of the order fixes its character for purposes of procedure on review. Union Tool Co. v. WilsonSearch
-
of that relief was the ground of the Commission's appeal. The order of denial, being final, was appealable, Lamb v. CramerSearch
-
long as Young was recalcitrant. On the other hand, the fine imposed by the District Court, unlike that involved in Fox v. CapitalSearch
-
of a coercive nature such as the Commission sought. It was solely and exclusively punitive in character. Cf. Nye v. UnitedSearch
-
coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him. Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
That practice has been approved. Kreplik v. CouchSearch
-
Patents Co., 190 F. 565, 571. And see Phillips Sheet & Tin Plate Co. v. AmalgamatedSearch
-
he did not appeal from the adverse judgment, he is precluded from renewing the objections at this stage. Le Tulle v. ScofieldSearch
-
of Appeals was correct in setting it aside, since the fine was imposed in a civil contempt proceeding. See Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
See Alaska Packers Assn. v. PillsburySearch
-
Georgia Hartford Lumber Co. v. CompaniaSearch
-
United States v. HawkSearch
-
Some rules governing criminal contempts are, of course, different from those governing civil contempts. Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Farmers & Mechanics Nat. Bank v. WilkinsonSearch
-
contempt in the same proceeding. MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, concurring. But for the decision in United States v. UnitedSearch
-
consequently, no criminal penalty could be imposed, coercive relief alone being allowable in such a case. Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Norstrom v. WahlSearch
-
Civil, Securities and Exchange Commission v. PenfieldSearch
-
See the Court's discussion in Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
see also discussion in United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Clarke v. FederalSearch
-
See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
E. Ingraham Co. v. GermanowSearch
-
power with all the implications of the judicial function in our constitutional scheme. Interstate Commerce Commission v. BrimsonSearch
-
to whom it is directed cannot be held responsible for the production of the papers. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. BrimsonSearch
-
Harriman v. InterstateSearch
-
Ellis v. InterstateSearch
-
Smith v. InterstateSearch
-
Federal Trade Commission v. AmericanSearch
-
and which the proceedings had made abundantly clear to him. The true significance of our opinion in United States v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Penfield Co. v. SECSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial