Remington v. United States
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Rosenberg (District Court, S.D. New York 1966)
- United States v. Charnay (District Court, S.D. New York 1962)
- In re Petition of American Historical Ass'n (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
- State v. Moffa (N.J. 1961)
- State v. Engesser (S.D. 2003)
- United States v. Orville S. Clavey (7th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Louis A. Marchisio, John H. Seiter and W. Ward Whipple (2d Cir. 1965)
- State v. Willits (Ariz. 1964)
- United States v. Remington (2d Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Lattimore (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Jack Shaoul (2d Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Victor Peterson (2d Cir. 1985)
- United States v. Daniel C. Cole and Daniel R. Cole (5th Cir. 1982)
- United States v. Cumberledge (United States Court of Military Appeals 1979)
- Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Internal Revenue (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
- State v. Kietzke (S.D. 1971)
- United States v. Bronston (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- United States v. Rosenberg (District Court, S.D. New York 1969)
- United States v. Projansky (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
- Commonwealth v. Giles (Mass. 1967)
- United States v. Goldenberg (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
- Dennis v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1966)
- United States v. American Optical Co. (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1965)
- United States v. Cobert (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1964)
- United States v. Simplot (District Court, D. Utah 1961)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
96 L.Ed. 1325
William Walter REMINGTON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 387.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 24, 1952
Messrs. William C. Chanler and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., for petitioner.
Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General McInerney, Robert L. Stern and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting.
A federal district court grand jury indicted petitioner for perjury. A petit jury convicted him. The Court of Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dismissed. 191 F.2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking certiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been dismissed. The majority now denies his petition. I think we should grant and consider two questions the petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fairness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to sustain the indictment.
Dissenting memorandum filed by Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs.
Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
The first challenge is:
'The Circuit Court of Appeals erred:
'In failing to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the foreman of the indicting grand jury, at the very time the indictment was returned, was the financial and literary collaborator of the chief prosecution witness in a book-publishing venture whose success depended upon the defendant's indictment.' The second challenge is:
'The United States Attorney deliberately withheld information concerning the collaboration of Bentley and Brunini from defendant's counsel and then sought to suppress the evidence when it became known to defendant's counsel from other sources.'
Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a fair administration of justice. It approaches the type of practices unanimously condemned by this Court as a violation of due process of law in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791. For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my custom and give reasons for my vote to grant certiorari in this case.
As to the legal significance of a denial of the petition for writ of certiorari, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER refers to his memoranda in State of Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 70 S.Ct. 252, 94 L.Ed. 562; and Agoston v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 844, 71 S.Ct. 9, 95 L.Ed. 619.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.