green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by Milton J. Shapp, Its Governor v. Thomas S. Kleppe, as Administrator of the Small Business Administration
Id. at 288-289 , 67 S.Ct. at 1210, 91 L.Ed. at 1501 An argument for granting state parens patriae standing to challenge the Vietnam War was made by Justice Douglas in Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886, 887-91 , 91 S.Ct. 128, 129-131 , 27 L.Ed.2d 130, 131-132 (1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania ex rel. Shapp v. Kleppe
An argument for granting state parens patriae standing to challenge the Vietnam War was made by Justice Douglas in Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886, 887-91 , 91 S.Ct. 128, 129-131 , 27 L.Ed.2d 130, 131-132 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwards
(2×)
See Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 , 91 S.Ct. 128 , 27 L.Ed.2d 130 (1970); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 , 73 S.Ct. 1031 , 97 L.Ed. 1586 reh. denied, 346 U.S. 841 , 74 S.Ct. 19 , 98 L.Ed. 361 (1953); Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 , 47 S.Ct. 265 , 71 L.Ed. 511 (1927); Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 407 , 21 S.Ct. 206, 207 , 45 L.Ed. 252 (1900); cf. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 , 80 S.Ct. 519 , 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960) (federal statute grants standing to litigate Fifteenth Amendment rights).
cited
Cited "see"
Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Data Transmission Co., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America
See id. at 887 , 91 S.Ct. 128 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Brainer
See, e. g., Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 , 91 S.Ct. 128 , 27 L.Ed.2d 130 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DaCosta v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Et Al.
See, e. g. , Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 , 91 S.Ct. 128 , 27 L.Ed.2d 130 (Douglas, J., dissenting) ( Mass. I ); Hart v. United States, 391 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1851 , 20 L.Ed.2d 871 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936 , 88 S.Ct. 1835 , 20 L.Ed.2d 856 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Mora v. McNamara, 389 U.S. 934, 935 , 88 S.Ct. 282 , 283, 19 L.Ed.2d 287 (Douglas J., dissenting); Mitchell v. United States, 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1162 , 18 L.Ed.2d 132 (Douglas, J., dissenting). 1 The circuits are in conflict as to the justiciability of these questions.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Smith
v.
Iowa Liquor Control Commission
v.
Iowa Liquor Control Commission
No. 5387.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 9, 1970.
Douglas, Noted, Set, Should.
Published
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Iowa dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.