Supreme Court· 1/17/1938

Wright v. United States

Citations

302 U.S. 583
58 S. Ct. 395
82 L. Ed. 439
1938 U.S. LEXIS 8

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “[t]he phrase ‘due process’ in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has long since been expanded beyond its literal meaning of due procedure”
holding that “[t]he phrase ‘due process’ in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has long since been expanded beyond its literal meaning of due procedure”
holding that “[t]he phrase ‘due process’ in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has long since been expanded beyond its literal meaning of due procedure”
holding that an adjournment by Congress was a prerequisite to prevention in the federal veto return provision; and sanctioning return via a proper agent during a temporary recess of one chamber without the other
construing “the Congress by their adjournment” in the federal veto return provision to mean both legislative chambers rather than solely the chamber in which the bill originated
construing “the Congress by their adjournment” in the federal veto return provision to mean both legislative chambers rather than solely the chamber in which the bill originated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hughes, Stone, Cardozo, Brandéis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

74 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Wright v. United States

384 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.