Dep't of Revenue v. United States, 368 U.S. 30 (1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Dep't of Revenue v. United States, 368 U.S. 30 (1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 28 East Jackson Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullerton (ca7, 1975-10-09) · Strongest negative: Local 1497, National Federation of Federal Employees v. City & County of Denver (cod, 1969-07-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Local 1497, National Federation of Federal Employees v. City & County of Denver
D. Colo. · 1969 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Department of Revenue of State of Illinois, 191 F.Supp. 723 (N.D.Ill.1961), vacated on other grounds 368 U.S. 30 , 82 S.Ct. 146 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 90 (1961), on remand 202 F.Supp. 757 (1962), affirmed per curiam, 371 U.S. 21 , 83 S.Ct. 117 , 9 L.Ed.2d 95 (1962).
cited Cited "see" 28 East Jackson Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullerton
7th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Department of Revenue of State of Ill., 191 F.Supp. 723, 726-27 (N.D.Ill.1961), Vacated on other grounds, 368 U.S. 30 , 82 S.Ct. 146 , 7 L.Ed.2d 90 .
cited Cited "see" 28 East Jackson Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullerton
7th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Department of Revenue of State of Ill., 191 F.Supp. 723, 726-27 (N.D.Ill. 1961), vacated on other grounds, 368 U.S. 30 , 82 S.Ct. 146 , 7 L.Ed.2d 90 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF ILLINOIS Et Al.
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
245.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 6, 1961.
368 U.S. 30
William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow and A. Zola Groves, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants., Solicitor General Cox and John H. Caruthers for the United States et al.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

In the light of the representations of the Solicitor General and upon consideration of the entire record, the judgment of the District Court is vacated. The case is remanded to the District Court for further consideration in the light of developments which have occurred since the injunction was issued, without prejudice to consideration by that court of any application by appellees for such temporary equitable relief as they may request pending the further proceedings hereby ordered.