HOPKINS

v.

MARYLAND

Citator

Cited By

• Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)
  …e of this case on the authority of Wood v. Broom [287 U. S. 1 (1932)].” Wood v. Broom involved only the interpretation of a congressional reapportionment Act. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause was not invoked in Tedesco v. Board of Supervisors, 339 U. S. 940 (1950). I do not read the later case of Colegrove v. Barrett, 330 U. S. 804 (1947), as having rejected the equal protection argument adopted here. That was merely a dismissal of an appeal where the equal protection point was mentioned along with a…

  ← 1 / 5 →
• Env't Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (U.S. 1973)
  …ions, recommendations and deliberations”); McFadden v. Avco Corp., 278 F. Supp. 57, 59-60 (MD Ala. 1967), and cases cited therein. In United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Comm., 9 F. R. D. 719, 720 (WD La. 1949), aff’d by equally divided court, 339 U. S. 940 (1950), the United States offered to file “an abstract of factual information” contained in the contested documents (FBI reports). See, e. g., Machin v. Zuckert, supra, at 340, 316 F. 2d, at 341 (private tort action; discovery of Air Force Aircraft…
• Avery v. Midland Cnty., 390 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1968)
  …med and remanded, 352 F. 2d 123 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1965). A precedent frequently cited in opposition to this conclusion is Tedesco v. Board of Supervisors, 43 So. 2d 514 (La. Ct. App. 1949), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 339 U. S. 940 (1950). Petitioner points out that the Equal Protection Clause was not invoked in Tedesco, where the districting of the New Orleans City Council was challenged under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. A more realistic answer is that Tedesco, deci…