Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bridges Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1953

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

64 entries 8 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Scharton US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  2. United States Vs. Mcelvain US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1926
  3. Haas Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1910
  4. Hallowell Vs. Commons US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1916
  5. Hertz Vs. Woodman US Supreme Court · May 31, 1910
  6. United States Vs. Cohn US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1926
  7. Hurd Vs. Hodge US Supreme Court · May 03, 1948
  8. United States Vs. Gilliland US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1941
  9. Bridges v. United
    Search
  10. States - 346 U.S. 209 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Bridges v. United
    Search
  11. States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) Bridges v. United
    Search
  12. membership or affiliation. The second such attempt Page 346 U. S. 212 culminated June 18, 1945, in Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  13. was denied. 201 F.2d 254. Because of an indicated conflict between that decision and part of the decision in Marzani v. United
    Search
  14. by an equally divided Court, 335 U.S. 895, 336 U.S. 922, as well as its conflict in part with United States v. Obermeier
    Search
  15. section, though denominated a proviso, is an excepting clause, and therefore to be narrowly construed. United States v. McElvain
    Search
  16. See United States v. Smith
    Search
  17. Page 346 U. S. 220 This interpretation of the scope of the 1942 provision was expressly approved in Marzani v. United
    Search
  18. membership, in connection with an application for a position in the government service. Referring to United States v. Gilliland
    Search
  19. opinion, by an evenly divided Court. 335 U.S. 895, 336 Page 346 U. S. 221 U.S. 922. See also United States v. Cohn
    Search
  20. legislation that its substantial reenactment, in 1942, carried with it the interpretation above stated. United States v. Scharton
    Search
  21. U. S. 201 . See also Braverman v. United
    Search
  22. States, 317 U. S. 49 , 317 U. S. 54 -55, and United States v. Cohn
    Search
  23. by false statements a Certificate of Naturalization to which he was not entitled. The Court of Appeals, in Marzani v. United
    Search
  24. of the offense defined in the statute. Another Court of Appeals arrived at a like conclusion in United States v. Obermeier
    Search
  25. so, the court relied in part upon a like conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Obermeier
    Search
  26. S.Rep. No. 1205, 72d Cong., 2d Sess. 3. See Campbell v. Holt
    Search
  27. Whether, in view of prior adjudications, including the determination of this Court in Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  28. U. S. 462 , and Hammerschmidt v. United
    Search
  29. of the new Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V). See also United States v. Gilliland
    Search
  30. In United States v. Smith
    Search
  31. Great Northern R. Co. v. United
    Search
  32. not some general feeling that litigation over frauds should end. Nor can we accept the Court's reliance on Marzani v. United
    Search
  33. The cases relied upon for the first point are United States v. Noveck
    Search
  34. U. S. 633 , and United States v. Scharton
    Search
  35. statements. Page 346 U. S. 232 Under the second point, the Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. Gilliland
    Search
  36. a constituent ingredient under the False Claims Act. Therefore, the Suspension Act did not apply. Cf. United States v. Gottfried
    Search
  37. covers nonpecuniary Page 346 U. S. 233 or nonproperty frauds. This has been true since Haas v. Henkel
    Search
  38. hearing would not be a fraud against the administration of the naturalization laws within the language of Haas v. Henkel
    Search
  39. Page 346 U. S. 234 determined. They point to the Landis proceedings of 1938, referred to in Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  40. that Bridges has not been a Communist. The Landis determination of then nonmembership was not a judicial one. Pearson v. Williams
    Search
  41. U. S. 281 . In Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  42. a)(2). There is no necessary identity in law between Communist Party members and such persons. See Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  43. States, 320 U. S. 118 . Cf. Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  44. Falter v. United
    Search
  45. Miller v. United
    Search
  46. United States v. Holt
    Search
  47. F.2d 365, 368. Cf. United States v. Manton
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Bridges v. United
    Search
  49. Marzani v. United
    Search
  50. United States v. Obermeier
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial