Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (1932)

U.S. Supreme Court, (November 07, 1932)

Docket number: 19

/us/287/241/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/ex-parte-united-states-20017069
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017069

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Steven Wise Wright and Clarence Edward Wright, Jr., Appellants, v. George Bailey and Raymond L. Bell, Appellees., 544 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1976)

U.S. Supreme Court - Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (1953)

U.S. Supreme Court - Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Petition of United States of America for a Writ of Mandamus., 306 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1962)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Michael Gogarty, Defendant-Appellant., 533 F.2d 93 (2nd Cir. 1976)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Victor Contreras, Defendant-Appellant., 776 F.2d 51 (2nd Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Gary L. Higgason, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert F. Stephens, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 288 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2002)

U.S. Supreme Court - Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas Owen Kysar, Defendant-Appellee., 459 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1972)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241 (1932)

287 U.S. 241

Ex parte UNITED STATES. No. 19. Argued on Return to Rule to Show Cause Nov. 7, 1932. Decided Dec. 5, 1932.

The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D.

Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.[ Ex parte United States 287 U.S. 241 (1932) ]

[Page 287 U.S. 241, 251]

and complete, and may be exercised upon its own motion and upon such knowledge as it may derive from any source which it may deem proper, and is not exhausted or limited by adverse action taken by a previous grand jury, and that a United States district attorney may present, without leave of court, charges which a previous grand jury has ignored. The necessary effect of the District Court's order, it was said (pages 412, 413 of 251 U.S., 40 S.Ct. 289, 291), 'was to bar the absolute right of the United States to prosecute by subjecting the exercise of that right, not only as to this indictment, but as to all subsequent ones for the same offenses, to a limitation resulting from the exercise of the judicial power,' and to bar the lawful authority of the United States attorney and of the grand jury 'by the application of unauthorized judicial discretion.' These observatons are pertinent here.

Rule made absolute.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access