White v. Howard, 347 U.S. 910 (1954). · Go Syfert
Search
White v. Howard, 347 U.S. 910 (1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Sticco (paqtrsessdauphi, 1960-07-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Sticco
Dauphin Cty. Ct. Qtr. Sess. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lattavo Brothers, Inc., v. Hudock, 119 F. Supp. 587 (1953), affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 347 U. S. 910 (1954).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Intrastate Trucking Corp. v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances, such regulations do not violate the constitutional due process rights of truck haulers (US Const 14th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6); nor do such regulations impose an undue burden on interstate commerce (see, Bakery Salvage Corp. v City of Lackawanna, supra; see also, Lattavo Bros. v Hudock, 119 F Supp 587 , affd 347 US 910 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Olson v. Board of Ed. of U. Free Sch. Dist. No. 12, Malverne, NY
E.D.N.Y · 1966 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare White v. Howard, 1954, 347 U.S. 910 , 74 S.Ct. 476 , 98 L.Ed. 1067 , rehearing denied, 347 U.S. 931 , 74 S.Ct. 529 , 98 L.Ed. 1083 , in which the Supreme Court cryptically vacated a judgment based “upon considerations of public policy to which the doctrine of res judicata should yield.” Howard v. Ladner, S.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
Howard
No. 501.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 8, 1954.
347 U.S. 910
Lester E. Wills for appellants., Perry W. Howard, Sr. for appellees.
Black, Consideration, Disposition, Douglas, Jurisdiction, Merits, Postpone, Question, Reed, Took.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent. They would postpone the question of jurisdiction to the merits. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.