KFAB BROADCASTING CO.
v.
SORENSEN
KFAB BROADCASTING CO.
SORENSEN
290 U.S. 599
Supreme Court of the United States (1933)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal herein is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the state court sought here to be reviewed was based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 419, 425, 426; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Southern Telegraph Co., 125 U.S. 695; Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 654; Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32; Uve Oak Water Users Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 269 U.S. 354, 359; Gerard Trust Co. v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 286 U.S. 523; Wagner v. Leenhouts, 287 U.S. 571; Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co. v. Springfield, 287 U.S. 577.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)…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. S. E. C., 299 U. S. 504; Leader v. Apex Hosiery Co., 302 U. S. 656; Woodring v. Clarksburg-Columbus Short Route Bridge Co., 302 U. S. 658; Retail Fo…
-
Farmers Educ. & Coop. Union of Am. v. Wday, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1959)…b. 348, 243 N. W. 82. Following this decision the case .was remanded for a new trial. Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Appeal to this Court was dismissed sub nom. KFAB Broadcasting Co. v. Sorensen, 290 U. S. 599, because, as the records of this Court disclose, the Supreme Court of Nebraska's holding had been based on adequate state grounds, namely, that the case had become moot through settlement. See Lamb v. Sutton, 164 F. Supp. 928; Yates v. Associated B…
-
Acheson v. Droesse, 197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)…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, 78 L.Ed. 526]; O’Ryan v. Mills Novelty Co., 292 U.S. 609 [54 S.Ct. 779, 78 L.Ed. 1469]; Hammond Clock Co. v. Schiff, 293 U.S. 529 [55 S.Ct. 146, 79 L.Ed. 639]; Bracken v. S. E. C., 299 U.S. 504 [57 S.Ct. 18, 81 L.Ed. 374]; Leader v. A…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)
- Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1924)
- Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 419 (U.S. 1861)
- Live Oak Water Users' Ass'n v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal., 269 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1926)
- Lang v. United States, 286 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1932)
- Third Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. White, 287 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1932)
- East Tennessee v. S. Tel. Co., 125 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1888)
- Wisconsin v. Michigan, 287 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1932)
- Ex parte Int'l Safety Razor Corp., 287 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1932)