RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL.

v.

MACMILLAN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
  …rogen Co. v. Tariff Commission, 274 U. S. 106; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U. S. 812; Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U. S. 249; Hargis v. Bradford, 283 U. S. 781; Mahan v. Hume, 287 U. S. 575; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Macmillan, 287 U. S. 576; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U. S. 704; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U. S. 585; Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Smith, 290 U. S. 599; O’Ryan v. Mills Novelty Co., 292 U. S. 609; Hammond Clock Co. v. Schiff, 293 U. S. 529; Bracken v…
• Burford v. SUN OIL Co., 319 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1943)
  …s double system of review. The most striking example of misunderstanding has come where the federal court has flatly disagreed with the position later taken by a state court as to state law. See MacMillan v. Railroad Commission, [*328] 51 F. 2d 400, 287 U. S. 576, and Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission, 49 S. W. 2d 837; 122 Tex. 243, 56 S. W. 2d 1075. In those cases, the federal court attributed a given meaning to the state statute which went to the heart of the control program. The Court of…
• Acheson v. Droesse, 197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
  ….Ed. 971]; Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U.S. 249 [50 S.Ct. 315, 74 L.Ed. 832]; Hargis v. Bradford, 283 U.S. 781 [51 S.Ct. 342, 75 L.Ed. 1411]; Mahan v. Hume, 287 U.S. 575 [53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505]; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Macmillan, 287 U.S. 576 [53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505]; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U.S. 704 [53 S.Ct. 658, 77 L.Ed. 1461]; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U.S. 585 [54 S.Ct. 61, 78 L.Ed. 517]; Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Smith, 290 U.S. 599 [54 S.Ct. 209,…

Authorities Cited

• Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1923)
• Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1926)
• United States Ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co., Inc. v. United States Tariff Comm'n, 274 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1927)