Citation network
Proper Vs. Clark
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1949
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 472 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court Proper v. ClarkSearch
-
U.S. 472 (1949) Proper v. ClarkSearch
-
Page 337 U. S. 475 that the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the claim in question, Markham v. TaylorSearch
-
affirmed. Clark v. PropperSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
compensate our citizens or ourselves for the damages done by the governments of the nationals affected. United States v. ChemicalSearch
-
U. S. 469 , 332 U. S. 476 . We assume that the Court of Appeals of New York held, in Singer v. YokohamaSearch
-
power to enact carries with it final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation. Prudence Realization Corp. v. GeistSearch
-
but federal law determines whether the event of appointment can free the property from the prior control. Cf. Lyeth v. HoeySearch
-
states unless their conclusions are shown Page 337 U. S. 487 to be unreasonable. Estate of Spiegel v. CommissionerSearch
-
MacGregor v. StateSearch
-
b subject to an attack on constitutional grounds under the doctrine of Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
U. S. 714 . In our opinion, the argument is without merit. Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
which is reasonably calculated to give notice to parties whose interests may be affected by the judgment. Cf. Milliken v. MeyerSearch
-
be met in other ways than seizure of title, e.g., by an injunction against transfer of the property, Pennington v. FourthSearch
-
by an attachment, Herbert v. BicknellSearch
-
or by personal service on the party holding the property within the state, Security Savings Bank v. CaliforniaSearch
-
as here by appointment of the temporary receiver, it is fair to permit substituted service. Anderson Nat. Bank v. LuckettSearch
-
McDonald v. MabeeSearch
-
procedure has been followed in order to avoid a decision on a federal constitutional issue -- Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
Chicago v. FielderestSearch
-
Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
Public Utilities Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
only issue in the case was one of state law, although federal jurisdiction was based on the Bankruptcy Act. Thompson v. MagnoliaSearch
-
federal determination was subject to equitable discretion and the state issue was the only one in the case. Meredith v. WinterSearch
-
practice in federal courts has been, when necessary, to decide both issues. This was the course we followed in Markham v. AllenSearch
-
the Enemy Act, where an issue was the construction of a state statute. The state law question in Estate of Spiegel v. CommissionerSearch
-
U. S. 335 U.S. 701, 335 U. S. 707 -708. In so doing, it followed the decision in Helvering v. StewartSearch
-
U. S. 154 , 317 U. S. 161 , et seq. Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
should have that issue submitted to state courts for decision. See the later decision in the same case, Tompkins v. ErieSearch
-
receiver before the promulgation of the freezing order. Reliance is placed on the rulings of cases like Kline v. BurkeSearch
-
U. S. 456 , 305 U. S. 466 , and Farmers' Loan, Co. v. LakeSearch
-
Markham v. AllenSearch
-
For opinions of the New York courts relating to the petitioner's action against ASCAP, see Propper v. BuckSearch
-
Propper v. BuckSearch
-
Propper v. TaylorSearch
-
See Clark v. UeberseeSearch
-
Compare Great Northern R. Co. v. SutherlandSearch
-
Central Trust Co. v. GarvanSearch
-
United States v. ChemicalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial