TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rosenberg v. United States

Rosenberg v. United States, 345 U.S. 989 (1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 15, 1953
Citations
345 U.S. 989345 U.S. 100373 S. Ct. 115197 L. Ed. 13971953 U.S. LEXIS 1914

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

An application for stay of execution was filed herein on June 12, 1953. It was referred to Mr. Justice Jackson, the appropriate Circuit Justice. Mr. Justice Jackson referred it to the Court for consideration and action, with the recommendation “that it be set for oral hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953, at which time the parties have agreed to be ready for argument.”

Upon consideration of the recommendation, the Court declined to hear oral argument on the application.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Burton, agreeing with Mr. Justice Jackson's recommendation, believe that the application should be set for hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953.

Thereupon, the Court gave consideration to the application for the stay, and denies it, Mr. Justice Burton joining in such denial.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson, believing that the application for a stay should not be acted upon without a hearing before the full Court, do not agree that the stay should be denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the Court should grant a rehearing and a stay pending final disposition of the case. But since a sufficient number do not vote for a rehearing, he is willing to join those who wish to hear argument on the question of a stay.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant a stay and hear the case on the merits, as he thinks the petition for certiorari and the petition for rehearing present substantial questions. But since the Court has decided not to take the case, there would be no end served by hearing oral argument on the motion for a stay. For the motion presents no new substantial question not presented by the petition for certiorari and by the petition for rehearing.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 21967: 11990: 119532026peak 1953 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sobell v. United States264 F. Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
  2. Rosenberg v. United States346 U.S. 273 (1953)
  3. United States ex rel. Farmer v. Kaufman750 F. Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
  4. Jullus Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg v. United States345 U.S. 979 (1953)

Most recent

  1. United States ex rel. Farmer v. Kaufman750 F. Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
  2. Sobell v. United States264 F. Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
  3. Rosenberg v. United States346 U.S. 273 (1953)
  4. Jullus Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg v. United States345 U.S. 979 (1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (1950) 828
Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950) 251
Rosenberg v. United States, 344 U.S. 889 (1952) 48
Agoston v. Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 844 (1950) 30
Bondholders v. Powell, 342 U.S. 921 (1952) 23
Chem. Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors, 343 U.S. 982 (1952) 9
Rosenberg v. United States, 345 U.S. 965 (1953) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list