CLAY CENTER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

v.

CITY OF CLAY CENTER

Citator

Cited By

• Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1961)
  …S. 651, Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, or which were necessary to the integrity of the federal governmental institution, see Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458; compare Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, with United States v. Powell, 212 U. S. 564, or which were created by Congress in the legitimate exercise of its Article I powers, see United States v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76. It was brought to the attention of Congress in 1871 that “rights, privileges, or immunities” was a more extensive phr…
• Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1945)
  …o state action recognize and often affirm the section’s applicability to wrongful action by state officials which infringes them: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876); Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1 (1906); United States v. Powell, 212 U. S. 564 (1909), see also 151 F. [*126] 648; Ex parte Riggins, 134 F. 404 (1904), dismissed, 199 U. S. 547; United States v. Sanges, 48 F. 78 (1891), writ of error dismissed, 144 U. S. 310; Powe v. United States, 109 F. 2d 147 (1940), cert. denied, 309 U. S.…
• United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1966)
  …(dissenting opinion). This has been the view of the Court from the beginning. United States v. Cruikshank, supra; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1; United States v. Powell, 212 U. S. 564. It remains the Court’s view today. See, e. g., Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296; United States v. Price, post, p. 787. This is not to say, however, that the involvement of the State need be either exclusive or direct. In a variety of situations the…

Authorities Cited

• Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Cnty., 166 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1897)
• Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McGREW, 188 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1903)
• Cap. Nat'l Bank of Lincoln v. First Nat'l Bank of Cadiz, 172 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1899)