UNITED STATES
v.
BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1939-12-18
No. 78
308 U.S. 525 Supreme Court of the United States (1939) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

[*525] Per Curiam:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 622-623; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 167; Hodge Co. v. Cincinnati, 284 U. S. 335, 337; South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177, 189.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …sent a conflicting federal regulation, a State seeks to impose safety or other requirements on a contractor who does business for the United States. See, e. g., Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co. v. Lichtenberg, 176 Md. 383, 4 A. 2d 734, appeal dismissed, 308 U. S. 525; James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94. Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm’n, 318 U. S. 261, can likewise be put to one side. There the question, much mooted, was whether [*544] the federal policy conflicted with the state policy fixing the…
  • James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1940)
    …commented upon in United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U. S. 138, 144. Note 2, supra. 302 U. S. 134, 160, 161. 176 Md. 383; 4 A. 2d 734, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, sub nom. United States v. Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co., 308 U. S. 525. The entire section reads: “22. Permits. The contractor shall without additional expense to the Government obtain all required licenses, permits, etc. This applies to work outside the lot-lines, the use of streets and sidewalks, the’ protection of…
  • …unity of the government from state taxation or regulation. Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1, 9, and cases cited; [*270] Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co. v. Lichtenberg, 176 Md. 383, 4 A. 2d 734, s. c., United States v. Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co., 308 U. S. 525. Here the state regulation imposes no prohibition on the national government or its officers. They may purchase milk from whom and at what price they will, without incurring any penalty. See the opinion below, 148 Pa. Super. 270-71. As in the case…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw