ELLIOTT ET AL.

v.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Tenn. Elec. Power Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 306 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1939)
  …49 Stat. 1075; 16 U. S. C. § 831, et seq. 50 Stat. 751-, 752, 2S U. S. C. § 380a. 21 F. Supp. 947. Georgia Power Company was enjoined from maintaining the action. See Georgia Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 17 F. Supp. 769; 89 F. 2d 218, 302 U. S. 692. Four other complainants have since been permitted to withdraw from the litigation without prejudice to its prosecution by the remaining appellants. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 619; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, 512; Massachus…
• Neild v. Dist. of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
  …ommerce clause operates as a limitation solely upon the states,15 it constitutes no bar to the action of Congress in any event.16 If the dictum to the contrary in Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Hazen, 67 App.D.C. 161, 90 F. 2d 406, certiorari denied, 302 U.S. 692, 58 S.Ct. 11, 82 L.Ed. 535, was intended to apply to the District of Columbia, we decline to follow it. In support of their contention, appellants rely upon the language of cases in which it has been said that Congress may exercise within the Distr…
• Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925 (3d Cir. 1941)
  …also direct authority in two circuit courts of appeals for the proposition that the federal district court which first obtains jurisdiction may preserve its jurisdiction by injunction. In re Georgia Power Co., 5 Cir., 89 F. 2d 218 certiorari denied, 302 U.S. 692, 58 S.Ct. 11, 82 L.Ed. 535; Milwaukee Gas Specialty Co. v. Mer-coid Corporation, 7 Cir., 104 F. 2d 589. Hazeltine, however, urges the applicability of the rule enunciated in Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 230, 43 S.Ct. 79, 81, 67 L.…