GANT ET AL.

v.

OKLAHOMA CITY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1932)
  …ow v. Krinsky, 259 U. S. 503; Lower Vein Coal Co. v. Industrial Board, 255 U. S. 144; Madera Sugar Pine Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 262 U. S. 499, 501, 502; Sheehan Co. v. Shuler, 265 U. S. 371; Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 U. S. 594. See Nogueira v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., supra, at pp. 136, 137. Second. The objections to the procedural requirements of the Act relate to the extent of the administrative authority which it confers. The administration of the Act— ‘ except as…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Miller Cabinet Co. v. State Indus. Bd., 291 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1934)
  …Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 U.S. 594; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U.S. 308, 311; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U.S. 29; Roe v. Kansas, 278 U.S. 191; American Baseball Club v. Philadelphia, 290 U.S. 595.…
• Gant v. Okla. City, 289 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1933)
  …ed by that court, and the ordinance sustained as valid under that clause as well1 as under the due process clause of the state constitution. An appeal to this court followed but was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, the decree not being final. 284 U.S. 594. After the remand to the state court of first instance, final decree "on the merits was. rendered against appellants. From that decree an appeal was taken to the state supreme court, which affirmed on the authority of its prior decision. 160 Okla. 6…

Authorities Cited

• Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420 (U.S. 1860)
• Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86 (U.S. 1855)