FLORIDA EX REL. VARS
v.
KNOTT; STATE TREASURER & INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
FLORIDA EX REL. VARS
KNOTT; STATE TREASURER & INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
308 U.S. 506
Supreme Court of the United States (1939)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
The death of William W. Vars, the appellant in this cause, having been suggested by counsel for the said appellant, and counsel for the appellee having indicated that they have no objection, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the cause of action has abated. Martin v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 691-692, 703; Kaipu v. Pinkham, 206 U. S. 566; Beard v. Arkansas, 207 U. S. 601, 602; Seale v. Georgia, 209 U. S. 554.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Advisory Opinion TO THE Governor, 509 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987)…ded that the classification is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and rests on some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. State ex rel. Vars v. Knott, 135 Fla. 206, 184 So. 752 (1938), appeal dismissed, 308 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed.2d 433 (1939), vacated on other grounds, 308 U.S. 507, 60 S.Ct 72, 84 L.Ed. 434 (1939). We cannot say that the distinctions which the act draws are arbitrary. Rather, the exemptions granted for legal services provided to indi…
-
Setzer v. Mayo, 150 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1942)…holesome food. Such statutes were designed to prevent fraud and protect the public health by prohibiting the manufacture and sale of foods that are injurious to the latter. Carolene Products Company v. Wallace, et al., 27 Fed. Supp. 110, affirmed in 308 U. S. 506, 60 Sup. Ct. 113, 84 L. Ed. 433; Hebe Company, et al., v. Shaw, et al., 248 U. S. 297, 39 Sup. Ct. 125, 63 L. Ed. 255; United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U. S. 144, 58 Sup. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. 1234; Carolene Products Company, et al., v.…1 / 2
-
Doyle Conner v. Cone, 235 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1970)…ase. United States v. Carolene Products Co., supra, and cases cited. “This opinion is planted squarely on the doctrine of the last cited case and the case of Carolene Products Co. v. Wallace et al., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 110, affirmed without opinion in 308 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 113, 84 L.Ed. 433, and as we interpret these cases, it is not sufficient to prove that cotton seed oil and other substitutes for butter fat are wholesome and nutritious, if it is shown that in addition to being wholesome and nutritious, th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 151 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1894)
- Agustin Castello v. Ruffer, 207 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1907)
- Ariz. E. R.R. Co. v. Pœhnix & E. R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1907)
- Emma L. Kaipu in behalf of Mikala Kaipu v. Pinkham, 206 U.S. 566 (U.S. 1907)
- Candido Acosta v. The People of Porto Rico, 206 U.S. 566 (U.S. 1907)
- The Pac. Express Co. v. Needham, 209 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1908)
- Penrose v. The United States, 209 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1908)