green
Positive treatment
1.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933
1979
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Southern California Freight Lines v. Public Utilities Commission
Proc., § 1074 6 ; American Toll Bridge Co. v. Railroad Com. (1938), 12 Cal.2d 184, 190-193 [ 83 P.2d 1 ]; see Ashbury Truck Co. v. Railroad Com. (1931), 52 F.2d 263, 267 (affmd., 287 U.S. 570 [ 53 S.Ct. 94 , 77 L.Ed. 501 ]); San Diego etc. Ferry Co. v. Railroad Com. (1930), 210 Cal. 504, 508-513 [ 292 P. 640 ]; Southern California Edison Co. v. Railroad Com. (1936), 6 Cal.2d 737, 748-749, 755 [ 59 P.2d 808 ].) The evidence summarized above disposes also of petitioner’s contention that the certificate granted Sterling to operate between San Diego and San Francisco is “not supported by any …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission
See also Ashbury Truck Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 52 F.2d 263, 268-69 (D.C.Cal.1931) (holding that motor carrier’s motion to enjoin state railroad commission — an administrative precursor to the CPUC — was without equity where carrier failed to apply for rehearing or review by state supreme court), affd, 287 U.S. 570 , 53 S.Ct. 94 , 77 L.Ed. 501 (1932).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1284, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2200 United Parcel Service, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission Daniel Wm. Fessler Patricia M. Eckert
See also Ashbury Truck Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 52 F.2d 263, 268-69 (D.C.Cal.1931) (holding that motor carrier's motion to enjoin state railroad commission--an administrative precursor to the CPUC--was without equity where carrier failed to apply for rehearing or review by state supreme court), aff'd, 287 U.S. 570 , 53 S.Ct. 94 , 77 L.Ed. 501 (1932).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louisville & Nashville R. Co.
v.
Parker, Administratrix
v.
Parker, Administratrix
No. 13.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 24, 1932.
Mr. Chas. H. Eyster, with whom Mr. Robert E. Steiner, Jr., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. W. A. Denson was on the brief for respondent.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The writ of certiorari herein is dismissed, upon the ground that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is joint and the record fails to disclose summons and severance. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn, 285 U. S. 169; Capital National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 286 U. S. 550; Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Hanson, post, p. 599.