green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
City of Portland v. Dollarhide
(3×)
See Terry v. City of Portland et al., 204 Or. 478, 492 , 269 P.2d 544 (1954), appeal dismissed 348 U.S. 979 , 75 S.Ct. 571 , 99 L.Ed. 762 (1955) ("It has been held that in determining whether the provisions of a municipal ordinance conflict with a statute covering the same subject, the test is whether the ordinance prohibits an act which the statute permits, or permits an act which the statute prohibits" (quoting 37 Am Jur, Municipal Corporations, § 165, p 787)).
cited
Cited "see"
Multnomah County v. Mittleman
See Terry v. City of Portland, 204 Or 478 , 269 P2d 544 (1954), appeal dismissed, 348 US 979 (1955); and City of Beaverton v. Harris, 3 Or App 541 , 474 P2d 771 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Application of Michael D. Mosher for Admission to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
In re Berkan, 648 F.2d 1386 , 1389 n. 1 (1st Cir.1981); see also In re Levy, 348 U.S. 978 , 75 S.Ct. 569 , 99 L.Ed. 762 (1955) (per curiam) (reversing district court's denial of application for admission because the record revealed no sufficient grounds for denial).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Portland Distributing Co. v. Department of Revenue
See, e.g., Terry v. City of Portland, 204 Or 478, 506 , 269 P2d 544 , appeal dismissed 348 US 979 (1955); City of Beaverton v. Harris, 3 Or App 541 , 474 P2d 771 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. City of Chicago
See also American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 1954, 3 Ill.2d 334 , 121 N.E.2d 585 , appeal dismissed for lack of a final judgment ( 348 U.S. 979 , 75 S.Ct. 572 , 99 L.Ed. 839 (1955)). 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ward Transport, Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 566.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 4, 1955.
Nuel D. Belnap and Albert L. Vogl for appellants., Solicitor General Sobeloff and Edward M. Reidy for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and Walter R. McFarland and Eldon Martin for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., appellees.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Per Curiam:The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.