SERVE YOURSELF GASOLINE STATIONS ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL.
v.
BROCK, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.; DELAY ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA

U.S. | 1953-06-15
Nos. 676; No. 757
345 U.S. 980 Supreme Court of the United States (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Appeal from the Supreme Court of California; and

Appeal from the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles, California.

Per Curiam:

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Andrew G. Nelson, Inc. v. United States, 355 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1958)
  • …uestion of the scope or coverage of a permit which the Commission has issued to a motor carrier, if that question is at all doubtful,” quoting Dart Transit Co. v. I. C. C., 110 F.Supp. 876, 880 (D.Minn.) [*745] (three-judge court), aff’d per curiam, 345 U.S. 980, 73 S.Ct. 1138, 97 L.Ed. 1394 (1953)). Application of Section 209(b) Benmar also contends that the Commission improperly applied the criteria of Section 209(b) because it failed to consider the effect of its decision upon Benmar. Yet Division 1 ex…
  • …n is CQntrolling on the court unless its orders are clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious. Andrew G. Nelson, Inc. v. United States, 355 U.S. 554, 558, 78 S.Ct. 496, 2 L.Ed.2d 484 (1958); Dart Transit Co. v. ICC, 110 F.Supp. 876 (D.Minn.), aff’d 345 U.S. 980, 73 S.Ct. 1138, 97 L.Ed. 1394 (1953); Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 755, 758-59 (D.Or.1963), aff’d 378 U.S. 125, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 744 (1964). The Commission’s view of Dart’s permit authority as being one of “inte…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw