green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1949 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1949
1987
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Movement, Inc. v. City of Chicago
See Davis v. Schnell, 81 F.Supp. 872 (S.D.Ala.1949), affirmed 336 U.S. 933 , 69 S.Ct. 749 , 93 L.Ed. 1093 (1949); 16A C.J.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Beer v. United States
See Schnell v. Davis, 336 U.S. 933 , 69 S.Ct. 749 , 93 L.Ed. 1093 (1949) ; Alabama v. United States, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S.Ct. 145 , 9 L.Ed.2d 112 (1962) ; Louisiana v. United *378 States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 , 85 S.Ct. 817 , 13 L.Ed.2d 709 (1965). 94 .
cited
Cited "see"
Orleans Parish School Board v. Earl Benjamin Bush
See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 , and Davis v. Schnell, D.C.S.D.AIa. (3 judge court), 81 F.Supp. 872 , affirmed, 336 U.S. 933 , 69 S.Ct. 749 , 93 L.Ed. 1093 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Civil Liberties Union v. Santillanes
Id. at 150, 85 S.Ct. 817 ; see also Davis v. Schnell, 81 F.Supp. 872 (S.D.Ala.), aff'd, 336 U.S. 933 , 69 S.Ct. 749 , 93 L.Ed. 1093 (1949).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Johnson
(2×)
See, e. g., Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933 (1949) (per curiam) (discriminatory application of voting tests); Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939) (procedural hurdles); Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915) (grandfather clauses).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilkins v. Ann Arbor City Clerk
See, also, Schnell v. Davis (1949), 336 US 933 ( 69 S Ct 749 , 93 L Ed 1093 ), affirming 81 F Supp 872 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America Ex Rel. Robert Lee Goldsby v. William Harpole, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman, Mississippi
Compare Davis v. Schnell, D.C.S.D.Ala. 1949, 81 F.Supp. 872, 879 , affirmed as Schnell v. Davis, 1949, 336 U.S. 933 , 69 S.Ct. 749 , 93 L.Ed. 1093 and the public debates which preceded the adoption of the “Boswell Amendment” there declared unconstitutional. 21 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Great Northern Railway Co.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 621.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 28, 1949.
Edwin C. Matthias, Reuben J. Hagman, Louis E. Torinus, Jr., A. Rea WilHams, Clarence A. Southerland, David F. Anderson and William Poole for appellant. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Bergson, Edward Dumbauld and /. Stanley Payne for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and S. J. Wettrick and Floyd F. Shields for General Mills, Inc. et al., respondents.
Published
Per Curiam:
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Board of Trade v. United States, 314 U. S. 534; Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658; Central R. Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 247.