ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

v.

EDWARDS

Citator

Cited By

• Dorchy v. State of Kan., 264 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1924)
  …on of the state legislature in this respect, like the usual function of interpreting a state statute, rests primarily upon the state court. Its decision as to the severability of a provision is conclusive upon this Court. Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531, 543; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 366; [*291] Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co., 245 U. S. 288, 290. In cases coming from the lower federal courts, such questions of severability, if there is no controlling state decision, must be.…
• Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1926)
  …ng and. effect of the statute drawn in question. These-assignments must be disregarded here, as upon writ of error to a state court we are -bound by its construction of the state law. See West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258; Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531, 541; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173; Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co., 245 U. S. 288, 290. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that in the proceedings for the revocation of the plaintiff’s license, Ke was entitled to take testimony on dep…
• D. E. Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1914)