Bryan v. Austin, 354 U.S. 933 (1957). · Go Syfert
Search
Bryan v. Austin, 354 U.S. 933 (1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
96 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Martin Rivera-Gomez v. Rafael Adolfo De Castro (ca1, 1988-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Martin Rivera-Gomez v. Rafael Adolfo De Castro (3×)
1st Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bryan v. Austin, 354 U.S. 933, 933 , 77 S.Ct. 1396, 1396 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1527 (1957) (per curiam); Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 515 (10th Cir.1972); Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F.2d 80, 88 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 821 , 82 S.Ct. 39 , 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961); 3 J.
discussed Cited "see" Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland (2×)
N.J. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gundaker Central Motors v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 82 (1956) appeal dism. 354 U.S. 933 , 77 S.Ct. *362 1397, 1 L.Ed. 2d 1533 (1957); McGowan v. Maryland, supra ( 366 U.S. at 541 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , concurring opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
discussed Cited "see" Sente v. Mayor and Mun. Coun. Clifton (2×)
N.J. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gundaker Central Motors v. Gassert, 23 N. J. 71 (1956), appeal dismissed, 354 U. S. 933 , 77 S. Ct. 1397 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 1533 (1957).
discussed Cited "see" McGowan v. Maryland (2×)
SCOTUS · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gundaker Central Motors, Inc., v. Gassert, 23 N. J. 71, 127 A. 2d 566 (1956), app. dism'd for want of a substantial federal question, 354 U. S. 933 ; Breyer v. State, 102 Tenn. 103 , 50 S. W. 769 (1899).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." NYT CABLE TV v. Homestead at Mansfield, Inc. (2×)
N.J. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
In analyzing the constitutionality of legislation, one of the most basic of presumptions is "that a statute will not be declared inoperative and unenforceable unless it is plainly in contravention of a constitutional mandate or prohibition." Profaci, supra, 56 N.J. at 349 (citing cases); see also Gundaker Central Motors, Inc. v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 81 (1956), app. dismissed 354 U.S. 933 , 77 S.Ct. 1397 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 1533 (1957) (duty of court to uphold legislation unless there is no room for doubt as to its violation of constitutional provisions).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Juan A. Marrero and Maria Marrero v. City of Hialeah, Etc. (3×)
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Bryan v. Austin, 354 U.S. 933 , 77 S.Ct. 1396 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1527 (1951) (per curiam) (case remanded with leave to amend complaint in light of change in state law occurring after district court decision).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc. (3×)
E.D. Mich. · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bryan v. Austin, 354 U.S. 933 , 77 S.Ct. 1396 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1527 (1957) ; Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 229 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1956). 40 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nelson v. S. BRUNSWICK PLANNING BD.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gundaker Central Motors v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 80 (1956), appeal dismissed 354 U.S. 933 , 77 S.Ct. 1397 , 1 L.Ed. 2 d 1533 (1957).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1961 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Bryan v. Austin, supra ; Public Service Comm'n v. Brashear Freight Lines, 312 U. S. 621 (1941).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bryan
v.
Austin, Superintendent, School District No. 7, Orangeburg County, South Carolina
No. 931.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 24, 1957.
354 U.S. 933
Thurgood Marshall, Robert L. Carter and Jack Greenberg for appellants. Robert McC. Figg, Jr. and David W. Robinson for appellees.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

In view of the repeal of South Carolina Act No. 741 of 1956 by Act No. 324 of 1957 after the decision below, 148 F. Supp. 563, the cause has become moot. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to it, with leave to the appellants to amend their pleadings either to safeguard any rights that may have accrued to them by virtue of the operation of the repealed Act or to set forth a cause of action based on the operation of the new Act. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.