Baker v. Pennsylvania, 401 U.S. 902 (1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Baker v. Pennsylvania, 401 U.S. 902 (1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Scott (nmctapp, 1992-02-18) · Strongest negative: Law v. United States Department of Agriculture (gand, 1973-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Law v. United States Department of Agriculture
N.D. Ga. · 1973 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Colson v. Hickel, 428 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 875 , 27 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971). 3 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Scott
N.M. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smith, 432 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 875 , 27 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971); State v. Huntington, 248 Iowa 430 , 80 N.W.2d 744 (1957).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. John Joseph Ahern and Carl Eugene Hines
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Beathune, 527 F.2d 696 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 996 , 96 S.Ct. 2211 , 48 L.Ed.2d 821 (1976) and United States v. Smith, 432 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 875 , 27 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Frank Sanders, III
8th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McKuin, 434 F.2d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 875 , 27 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971) (joinder was proper when both defendants caused mailings in furtherance of a single mail fraud scheme).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baker, Trustees of Property of Penn Central Transportation Co.
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 986.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1971.
401 U.S. 902
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from D. C. W. D. Pa. Judgment vacated and case remanded with instructions to vacate the interlocutory injunction appealed from because the injunction, together with the underlying cause, has become moot.