UNITED STATES

v.

WURTS

Citator

Cited By

• Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 329 U.S. 69 (U.S. 1946)
  …resolved not only by an examination of the entire record (Clark v. Williard, supra) but, where necessary, by resort to the local law to determine what effect the judgment has under the state rules of practice. Brady v. [*73] Terminal Railroad Assn., 302 U. S. 678; Brady v. Southern Ry. Co., 319 U. S. 777. See Boskey, Finality of State Court Judgments under the Federal Judicial Code, 43 Col. L. Rev. 1002, 1005. This suit is brought under the California Retail Sales Tax Act, § 23 and § 31, which prescribes th…
• Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1942)
  …ant’s burden is to show affirmatively that we have jurisdiction. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U. S. 128, 132; cf. Lynch v. New York, 293 U. S. 52, 54-55; Enriquez v. Enriquez (No. 2), 222 U. S. 127, 130; Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 302 U. S. 678. The first opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee made no mention of any federal question, and in a supplemental opinion the court stated only that “the claim of federally protected right was decided adversely to complainant.” Since it…