PASCONE

v.

MASSACHUSETTS

Citator

Cited By

• Wulp v. Corcoran, 454 F.2d 826 (1st Cir. 1972)
  …pal permit the equivalent of the state license. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Akmakjian, 316 Mass. 97, 98-99, 55 N.E. 2d 6 (1944); Commonwealth v. Pascone, 308 Mass. 591, 597-598, 33 N.E. 2d 522, cert, denied, Pascome v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 314 U.S. 641, 62 S.Ct. 82, 86 L.Ed. 514 (1941). Even though the Massachusetts courts might filter some of the impurities of the Cambridge ordinance on state statutory grounds, however, this would not eliminate all of plaintiffs’ grievances.11 The Supreme Court…
• Copra v. José A. Suro, 236 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1956)
  …of whether “denial of an interlocutory injunction in the circumstances disclosed was • * * * an improvident exercise of the discretion confided to the trial court.” Hannan v. City of Haverhill, 1 Cir., 1941, 120 F. 2d 87, 90, certiorari denied 1941, 314 U.S. 641, 62 S.Ct. 81, 86 L.Ed. 514; cf. State of Alabama v. United States, 1929, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675. The reason for this limitation that was quoted in the Han-nan opinion has particular force in the circumstances of the present case:…
• Celebrity, Inc. v. Trina, Inc., 264 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1959)
  …1929, 279 U.S. 229, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675, Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Free Sewing Mach. Co., 7 Cir., 1958, 256 F. 2d 806, Copra v. Suro, 1 Cir., 1956, 236 F. 2d 107, Hannan v. City of Haverhill, 1 Cir., 1941, 120 F. 2d 87, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 641, 62 S.Ct. 81, 86 L.Ed. 514. This exercise of discretion by the district court if sound will not be reversed by the appellate court even though if it had been the lower court it would have made a different order. Shearman v. Missouri Pacific Railroa…