CAVALIER VENDING CORP. ET AL.

v.

STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983)
  …7 (1929), 281 U. S. 179, decree entered, 281 U. S. 696 (1930), temporarily modified, 352 U. S. 945 (1956), 352 U. S. 983 (1957), superseded, 388 U. S. 426 (1967); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, decree entered, 283 U. S. 805 (1931), modified, 347 U. S. 995 (1954).16 The Court’s purpose in retaining jurisdiction in those cases can be gleaned from the respective reports of the Special Masters, which note the need for flexibility in light of changed conditions and questions which could not be disposed of…
• Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1954)
  …nd. Co., 188 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Neither federal nor Louisiana law suggests any reason to disturb this practice. The decision of the Court of Appeals is Ajjirmed. See also McDowell v. National Surety Corp., 68 So. 2d 189, appeal dismissed, 347 U. S. 995. Two proposals for compulsory joinder of insured and insurer as party-defendants have failed of passage in the Louisiana Legislature within recent years. See La. Senate Bill 73, 1952 Session; La. House Bill 600, 1954 Session. See also 3 Moore’s Fe…
• Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1983)
  …e commission’s decisions without providing the States an opportunity to challenge them, see Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238 (1894). We have, however, been willing to appoint a River Master solely to perform ministerial tasks. New Jersey v. New York, 347 U. S. 995, 1002-1004 (1954). We note that the Special Master’s 1979 Report, which we approved, decisively rejected New Mexico’s argument that the Pecos River Commission in fact adopted the Review of Basic Data, but that same report did not suggest that we di…