Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Parr Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 1956

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

34 entries 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Parr v. United
    Search
  2. States - 351 U.S. 513 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Parr v. United
    Search
  3. States, 351 U.S. 513 (1956) Parr v. United
    Search
  4. Christi proceeding as a separate prosecution, petitioner has not been injured by its termination in his favor. Lewis v. United
    Search
  5. the dismissal order must abide petitioner's trial, and only then, if convicted, will he have been aggrieved. Cf. Heike v. United
    Search
  6. in federal appellate procedure require no elaboration at this late date. See Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  7. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Southern
    Search
  8. Co., 108 U. S. 24 , 108 U. S. 28 . This rule applies in criminal as well as civil cases. Berman v. United
    Search
  9. Berman v. United
    Search
  10. Heike v. United
    Search
  11. recognized by this Court in such cases as Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  12. Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 , and Swift & Company v. Compania
    Search
  13. Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  14. Swift & Company v. Compania
    Search
  15. Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  16. cases cited therein. This is not a case where a court has exceeded or refused to exercise its jurisdiction, see Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  17. U. S. 26 , nor one where appellate review will be defeated if a writ does not issue, cf. Maryland v. Soper
    Search
  18. they may not be used Page 351 U. S. 521 to thwart the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals. Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  19. Together with No. 202, Misc., Parr v. Rice
    Search
  20. established prior to the nonsuit, and was obviously aggrieved by the loss of that judgment. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning
    Search
  21. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schmick
    Search
  22. Iowa-Nebraska L. & P. Co. v. Daniels
    Search
  23. F.2d 322. In the fourth case, Cybur Lumber Co. v. Erkhart
    Search
  24. had the requisite finality, petitioner may not appeal it, because he was not aggrieved thereby, relying upon Lewis v. United
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Parr v. United
    Search
  26. Lewis v. United
    Search
  27. Cf. Heike v. United
    Search
  28. See Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  29. and Swift & Company v. Compania
    Search
  30. Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  31. Misc., Parr v. Rice
    Search
  32. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning
    Search
  33. Cybur Lumber Co. v. Erkhart
    Search
  34. Maryland v. Soper
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial