green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Montgomery County, Maryland
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 12 (D.S.C.1959, three-judge court, opinion by Haynsworth, J.), aff'd, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960). 6 8 It must not be ignored, however, that Judge Northrop apparently appreciated that, on his view of the statute's meaning, he had avoided a constitutional confrontation by his determination that the United States was not a person.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Montgomery County
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9,12 (D.S.C.1959, three-judge court, opinion by Haynsworth, J.), aff'd, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (I960). 6 It must not be ignored, however, that Judge Northrop apparently appreciated that, on his view of the statute’s meaning, he had avoided a constitutional confrontation by his determination that the United States was not a person.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. District of Columbia
(2×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 22 (E.D.S.C.1959) (three judge court), aff’d per curiam, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank
(2×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 15 (EDSC 1959) (three-judge court), aff'd per curiam, 364 U. S. 281 (1960).
cited
Cited "see"
Group Assisting Sewer Proposal-Ansonia v. City of Ansonia
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 15 (E.D.S.C. 1959), aff’d, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960); Hopkins v. Southern California Tel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke
See, United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 12-13 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960), quoted authoritatively in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. supra, at 250-251, 88 S.Ct. 391 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Abraham v. Hodges
See also United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 16 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff'd per curiam, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960) (finding “the explosion [at] ...
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scotsman Manufacturing Co. v. State
See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. at 722-726 . 3 S«i see Livingston v. United States, 364 U.S. 281 (1960), where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a contractor who used federal government property to provide a service to the United States was not subject to a state use tax, even though the contractor was not incorporated into the federal government, because the contractor’s total remuneration under the contract was only one dollar and the contractor otherwise had no hope of gain by using the government’s facilities.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barrows v. Reddin
See also Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 at 376, n. 11 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) quoting United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9 (D.C.E.D.S.C.) aff’d 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LIVINGSTON Et Al.
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
895.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1960.
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and James M. Windham and James S. Vemer, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants., Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Myron C. Baum, Loren K. Olson and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States and the Atomic Energy Commission, appellees., Hugh K. Clark and W. Graham Claytor, Jr. for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., appellee.
Black, Douglas.
Cited by 96 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to substitute Harold Murph and Robert C. Wasson in the place of Francis M. Pickney and James W. Crain as parties appellant is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion probable jurisdiction should be noted.