green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.4 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases ·
"When confronted with a court order subject to two possible interpretations, one in compliance with applicable * * * [law], the other in violation of * * * [the law], we must presume that the court intended its order to comply with the controlling law."
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“More important, both have the power to raise their own funds by tax levy and by bond issuance.”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Wigger v. McKee
(2×)
See McConnell v. Adams, 829 F.2d 1319 (4th Cir.1987) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1006 , 108 S.Ct. 1731 , 100 L.Ed.2d 195 (1988) (county electoral board is arm of state); Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir.1986) (county adult probation department is arm of state); but see Holley v. Lavine, 605 F.2d 638 (2nd Cir.1979) cert. denied 446 U.S. 913 , 100 S.Ct. 1843 , 64 L.Ed.2d 266 (1980) and Mackey v. Stanton, 586 F.2d 1126 (7th Cir.1978) cert. denied 444 U.S. 882 , 100 S.Ct. 172 , 62 L.Ed.2d 112 (1979) (under New York and Indiana law, county social services departments are not arms of state).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hamid R. Kashani v. Purdue University
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
more important, both have the power to raise their own funds by tax levy and by bond issuance.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hutchinson Utilities Commission Of The City Of Hutchinson v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
when confronted with a court order subject to two possible interpretations, one in compliance with applicable , the other in violation of , we must presume that the court intended its order to comply with the controlling law.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hutchinson Utilities Commission of Hutchinson v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
when confronted with a court order subject to two possible interpretations, one in compliance with applicable , the other in violation of , we must presume that the court intended its order to comply with the controlling law.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mosley v. Bowen
See Mackey v. Stanton, 586 F.2d 1126, 1131 (7th Cir.1978) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 882 , 100 S.Ct. 172 , 62 L.Ed.2d 112 (1979); Bennett v. White, 671 F.Supp. 343, 349 (E.D.Pa.1987); Beasley v. Harris, 671 F.Supp. 911 (D.Conn.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard A. Boggs
(2×)
See Mackey v. Stanton, 586 F.2d 1126, 1130 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 882 , 100 S.Ct. 172 , 62 L.Ed.2d 112 (1979); see also McDonnell v. American Leduc Petroleums, Ltd., 456 F.2d 1170, 1188 (2d Cir.1972) (Hays, J., concurring and dissenting in part) (if record on appeal does not disclose what rule of law district court applied, appellate court should presume that district court correctly applied applicable law) (citing cases).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grigsby v. Mabry
This limitation on federal courts seems to have been modified to a preference that the evidentiary hearing be held in the district court rather than the state court, Lokos v. Capps, 569 F.2d 1362, 1363 (5th Cir. 1978); accord, Fitch v. Estelle, 587 F.2d 773, 778-79 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 111 (1979), but once exhaustion has been shown the policies favoring a federal hearing remain the same.
discussed
Cited "see"
ca8 1980
This limitation on federal courts seems to have been modified to a preference that the evidentiary hearing be held in the district court rather than the state court, Lokos v. Capps, 569 F.2d 1362, 1363 (5th Cir. 1978); accord, Fitch v. Estelle, 587 F.2d 773, 778-79 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 111 (1979), but once exhaustion has been shown the policies favoring a federal hearing remain the same.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
Compare Mackey v. Stanton, 586 F.2d 1126, 1131 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 882 , 100 S.Ct. 172 , 62 L.Ed.2d 112 (1979) (the county department and the school board have the power to raise their own funds by tax levy and by bond issuance, providing a manner for payment of judgments without resort to the state treasury); United Carolina Bank, supra, at 558 (“Most telling is the power of junior colleges to levy ad valorem taxes [as] ... [u]nder Texas law, political subdivisions are sometimes defined as entities authorized to levy taxes.”); Hall, supra, at 304 (“[N]one of the [Ohio…
Collum
v.
Louisiana and In re Collum
v.
Louisiana and In re Collum
No. 78-1715.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1979.
Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.Reported below: 368 So. 2d 460.