green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Funbus Systems, Inc. v. State of California Public Utilities Commission
Service Storage & Transfer Co. v. Virginia, 359 U.S. 171, 177-78 , 79 S.Ct. 714, 718-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 717 (1959) (“[Interpretations of federal certificates of this character should be made in the first instance by the authority issuing the certificate and upon whom the Congress has placed the responsibility of action.”); accord Jones Motor Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 361 U.S. 11 , 805 S.Ct. 69 , 4 L.Ed.2d 50 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see"
Funbus Systems, Inc. v. State of California Public Utilities Commission, Airport Service, Inc., Real Party in Interest. Interstate Commerce Commission, Applicant for Intervention-Appellant. Funbus Systems, Inc. v. State of California Public Utilities Commission, Airport Service, Inc., Real Party in Interest. Interstate Commerce Commission, Applicant for Intervention-Appellant. Airport Service, Incorporated, State of California and Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Intervenors-Petitioners v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Funbus Systems, Inc., Real Party-Intervenor. Airport Service, Incorporated, State of California and Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Intervenors-Petitioners v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Lounge Car Tours Charter Company, Inc., Real Party-Intervenor
Service Storage & Transfer Co. v. Virginia, 359 U.S. 171, 177-78 , 79 S.Ct. 714, 718-19 , 3 L.Ed.2d 717 (1959) ("[I]nterpretations of federal certificates of this character should be made in the first instance by the authority issuing the certificate and upon whom the Congress has placed the responsibility of action."); accord Jones Motor Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 361 U.S. 11 , 805 S.Ct. 69 , 4 L.Ed.2d 50 (1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RYALS
v.
FLORIDA
v.
FLORIDA
No. 132.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1959.
Lloyd D. Martin for appellant.
Published
Per Curiam.
The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.