Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bindczyck Vs. Funicane

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 26, 1951

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

45 entries 4 linked 41 unlinked
Show
  1. Burnet Vs. Harmel US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1932
  2. Hanover National Bank Vs. Moyses US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1902
  3. Fernandez Vs. Wiener US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1945
  4. United States Vs. Ness US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1917
  5. U.S. 76 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Bindczyck v. Funicane
    Search
  6. U.S. 76 (1951) Bindczyck v. Funicane
    Search
  7. the finality of local judgments. Pp. 342 U. S. 79 -86. (b) A different result is not required by Tutun v. United
    Search
  8. the views of the court below and those of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Volpe v. Jordan
    Search
  9. left open the question whether a court of equity had such power without express legislative authority. Johannessen v. United
    Search
  10. citizenship before 1906 was not always surrounded by the safeguards of an original equity proceeding. See, e.g., Tinn v. United
    Search
  11. the Government had recourse to appeal for examination of the action of the naturalizing court on the record. Tutun v. United
    Search
  12. was found not to prevent the taking of appeals from a naturalization order, Tutun v. United
    Search
  13. See Eddy v. Summers
    Search
  14. a judgment does not come into being until a defined period or event after a decision is rendered. Compare Commissioner v. Estate
    Search
  15. a term, in general, ends only at the commencement of the next succeeding term held at the same place. See, e.g., Comes v. Comes
    Search
  16. Hensley v. State
    Search
  17. Maryland (Baltimore City Court) -- See Harvey v. Slacum
    Search
  18. Nevada -- See Lauer v. Eighth
    Search
  19. it appears, a court has no control over its judgments after they are signed and entered. See, e.g., Louisiana Bank v. Hampton
    Search
  20. Nelson & Co. v. Rocquet
    Search
  21. except for clerical error. Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Cram
    Search
  22. Joy v. Young
    Search
  23. of an issued certificate. It is settled law, however, that appeals are allowable from federal and state courts. Tutun v. United
    Search
  24. See United States v. Sanges
    Search
  25. Cf. Stark v. Wickard
    Search
  26. See Johannessen v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Ness
    Search
  28. Henderson v. Carbondale
    Search
  29. Zimmern v. United
    Search
  30. States, 298 U. S. 167 . See Eddy v. Summers
    Search
  31. Wright v. Vinton
    Search
  32. Cf. United States v. American
    Search
  33. Volpe v. Jordan
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Bindczyck v. Funicane
    Search
  35. Tutun v. United
    Search
  36. Volpe v. Jordan
    Search
  37. Johannessen v. United
    Search
  38. Tinn v. United
    Search
  39. Compare Commissioner v. Estate
    Search
  40. Comes v. Comes
    Search
  41. See Harvey v. Slacum
    Search
  42. See Lauer v. Eighth
    Search
  43. Louisiana Bank v. Hampton
    Search
  44. Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Cram
    Search
  45. Goddard v. Ordway
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial