green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis
(2×)
See City of Tullahoma v. Coffee County, 328 F.2d 683 (6th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 698 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
F. E. L. Publications, Ltd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
See CableVision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc., 335 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, Klix Corp. v. CableVision, Inc., 379 U.S. 989 , 89 S.Ct. 700 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
B & W Construction, Inc. v. City of Lacey
The plaintiff need not prove a "substantial injury"; he need only show a "measurable or provable decline in market value." Highline School Dist. 401 v. Port of Seattle, 87 Wn.2d 6, 13 , 548 P.2d 1085 (1976); accord, Martin v. Port of Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 309 , 391 P.2d 540 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 , 13 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc.
See Cable Vision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc., 335 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 700 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Serna
See Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 53 , certiorari denied 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 702 , 13 L.Ed.2d 610 . * * * ” See, also, Martinez v. Flores, 9 Cir., 299 F.2d 888 , and cases therein cited.
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Serna
See Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 53 , certiorari denied 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 702 , 13 L.Ed.2d 610 . * * *" 4 See, also, Martinez v. Flores, 9 Cir., 299 F.2d 888 , and cases therein cited. 5 The appeal is dismissed.
cited
Cited "see"
James E. Garrison v. Alonzo L. Lacey, Special Agent, E. M. Garnett, U.S. Commissioner, and mr.baylark, U.S. Marshal
See Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 53 , certiorari denied 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 702 , 13 L.Ed.2d 610 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Henry James Wright, A/K/A Shawn Denvers, United States of America v. Henry James Wright, A/K/A Shawn Denvers
See Carneal v. United States, 212 F.2d 20, 20 (4th Cir.1954); see also United States v. Smith, 335 F.2d 898, 901 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 (1965); Chanan Din Khan v. Barber, 147 F.Supp. 771, 774 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Inc. v. Mabus
See, e.g., Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 , 85 S.Ct. 384 , 13 L.Ed.2d 300 (1964), reh’g. den., 379 U.S. 995 , 85 S.Ct. 698 , 13 L.Ed.2d 614 (Civil Rights Act of 1964 abated a state prosecution for trespass.); U.S. v. Peters, 9 U.S. 115, 5 Cranch 115, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 53 (1809). 21 .Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 , 91 S.Ct. 507 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971) (actions under statutory scheme unconstitutionally branded citizens as alcoholic and denied them right to buy liquor without opportunity to respond to the charges); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 , 95 S.Ct. 729 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (197…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Young v. Palm Beach County
See State Road Department v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745 , 1 So.2d 868 (1941); City of Jacksonville, supra ; see also Martin v. Port of Seattle, 64 Wash.2d 309 , 391 P.2d 540 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 701 , 13 L.Ed.2d 610 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca6 1971
(2×)
See also City of Tullahoma v. Coffee County, 328 F.2d 683 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 698 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965). 14 We find, therefore, that in acquiring private property by condemnation for its legitimate statutory purposes the TVA is not limited to the Tennessee Valley watershed nor to its power supply area as defined by statute. 6 15 The remaining question is whether the acquisition of the easement in Kentucky for the construction of a conveyor belt, under the circumstances of this case, may be regarded as a valid public purpose so as to justify the exercise of …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Illinois Central Railroad v. Tennessee Valley Authority
(2×)
See also City of Tullahoma v. Coffee County, 328 F.2d 683 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 698 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Teleprompter Corp.
See also Cable Vision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc., 335 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1964) cert, denied Kliix Corp. v. Cable Vision, 379 U.S. 989 , 85 S.Ct. 700 , 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965); Z Bar Net, Inc. v. Helena Television, Inc., 125 U.S.P.Q. 595 (Montana District Court, 1960); Canadian Admiral Corp., Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., 20 Can.Pat.Rep. 75, [1954] Can.
Coffee County, Tennessee
v.
City of Tullahoma
v.
City of Tullahoma
No. 107.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1965.
Gerald L. Ewell, David W. Shields III and H. J. Garrett for peti- ' tioner. Edwin F. Hunt for respondent. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Morton Hollander, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Charles J. McCarthy and Robert H. Marquis for the United States, as amicus curiae, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.