How cited: Cluster 96066 · Go Syfert

Cluster 96066

green · 394 citation events across 49 courts. Showing the 12 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
Wesby, 138 24 S. Ct. at 590.
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Houghton v. Payne (1904) 194 U.S. 88, 96-97 [ 48 L.Ed. 888 , 24 S.Ct. 590 ] [holding literary series to constitute books and not periodical publications, for purposes of postal regulations, due to lack of “continuity of literary character, a connection between the different numbers of the series in the nature of the articles appearing in them”]; Fifield v. American Auto.
Rule Authority · N.J. Tax Ct.
Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 98 , 24 S.Ct. 590, 592 , 48 L.Ed. 888, 890 (1903).
Rule Authority · E.D. Okla.
Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U.S. 258, 268 [ 22 S.Ct. 463 , 46 L.Ed. 528 ], Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99 [ 24 S.Ct. 590 , 48 L.Ed. 888 ].
emphasis added
Rule Authority · Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
(Riley v. Forbes, 193 Cal. 740, 745 [ 227 P. 768 ]; Hodge v. McCall, 185 Cal. 330, 334 [ 197 P. 86 ]; 23 Cal.Jur. 776; see Federal Trade Com. v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427 [ 40 S.Ct. 572 , 64 L.Ed. 993 ]; United States v. Dickson, 40 U.S. [15 Pet.] 141, 161, 162 [ 10 L.Ed. 689 ]; Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99, 100 [ 24 S.Ct. 590 , 48 L.Ed. 888 ]; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441 [ 56 S.Ct. 767 , 80 L.Ed. 1268 , 105 A.L.R. 756 ]; Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245 [ …
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99 (1904) (holding that a statute is ambiguous when it is “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”); Freemanville Water Sys., Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the “very definition of ambiguity” is the existence of “two reasonable, competing interpretations” (emphasis added)).
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99 (1904) (holding that a statute is ambiguous when it is “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”); Freemanville Water Sys., Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the “very definition of ambiguity” is the existence of “two reasonable, competing interpretations” (emphasis added)).
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99 (1904) (holding that a statute is ambiguous when it is “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”); Freemanville Water Sys., Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the “very definition of ambiguity” is the existence of “two reasonable, competing interpretations” (emphasis added)).
Cited · S.D. Fla. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 99 , 24 S.Ct. 590 , 48 L.Ed. 888 (1904) (Statute is ambiguous when “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”).
Statute is ambiguous when “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”
Cited · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
A, §§ 200.0110, 200.0121 (July 1, 1988); see Houghton v. Paine (1904) 194 U.S. 88, 94-95 [ 48 L Ed 888, 889 , 24 S.Ct. 590 ].) Accordingly, the classification set forth in regulation 1590 is within the broad grant of interpretative power given to the Board by the Legislature.
Cited (see also) · D.C. Cir. · signal: see also · 3 citations in this opinion
See also, Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 100 , 24 S.Ct. 590 , 48 L.Ed. 888 . [22] Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co., 265 U.S. 322, 331 , 44 S.Ct. 496 , 68 L.Ed. 1036 ; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 413 , 49 S.Ct. 163 , 73 L.Ed. 426 (thirty years). [23] Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 336, 337 , 50 S.Ct. 115 , 74 L.Ed. 457 . [24] Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 414 , 49 S.Ct. 163 , 73 L.Ed. 426 . [25] Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp., 305 U.…
Cited (see also) · D.C. Cir. · signal: see also · 3 citations in this opinion
See also, Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 100 , 24 S.Ct. 590 , 48 L.Ed. 888 .