neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
published
0.5 score
Cited for
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“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.”
- Hutchinson Utils. Comm'n Of The City Of Hutchinson v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 775 F.2d 231 (8th Cir. 1985).published“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…”
- Hutchinson Utils. Comm'n of Hutchinson v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 775 F.2d 231 (8th Cir. 1985).published“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…”
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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.
Published opinion
444 U.S. 882
1979 U.S. LEXIS 3211
Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.Reported below: 368 So. 2d 460.