green
Positive treatment
1.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blum v. Lanier
Although no statute or ordinance prescribes the proposition’s form in this instance, Blum argues that the City’s choice of language is nonetheless limited by the common law, which requires that the proposition identify the measure “with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 72 Tex. 57 , 12 S.W. 165, 165-66 (1888); see also Bischoff v. City of Austin, 656 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied 466 U.S. 919 , 104 S.Ct. 1699 , 80 L.Ed.2d 172 (1984)(same); Wright v. Board of Trustees of Tatu…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Buckingham Corp.
v.
Odom Corp., dba Arizona Distributing Co.
v.
Odom Corp., dba Arizona Distributing Co.
No. 82-1787.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 2, 1984.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752 (1984).