HOLMES ET AL.
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA ET AL.
HOLMES ET AL.
CITY OF ATLANTA ET AL.
350 U.S. 879
Supreme Court of the United States (1955)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 83 cases
Per_curiam
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgments both of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a decree for petitioners in conformity with Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City v. Dawson, ante, p. 877, decided this day.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (79 total)
-
Potashnick-Badgett Dredging Inc. v. Whitfield, 269 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…es v. Gulf Coast Dredging Co., 54 F. 2d 69 (5th Cir. 1961); Woods v. Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock & Repair Co., 14 F.Supp. 208 (S.D.Fla.1936). However, this doctrine has been characterized as disfavored and apparently overruled by Gianfala v. Texas Co., 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 775 (1955). Chesser v. General Dredging Co., supra. In any event, the doctrine’s application here is highly doubtful, as the channel which was being dredged in the instant case was to be used in interstate commerce, for coal…
-
Brown v. Stanwick Int'l, Inc., 367 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…“special purpose structures” which are designed to float on water but which have no motive power of their own and do not perform the conventional functions of a vessel in carrying goods or passengers from place to place. E.g., Gianfala v. Texas Co., 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 775 (1955) (submersible drilling barge); Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U.S. 370, 77 S.Ct. 415, 1 L.Ed.2d 404 (1957) (dredge); Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271, 78 S.Ct. 734, 2 L.Ed.2d 754 (1958) (inoperable tug lashe…
-
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978)…al rule is properly applicable here. The Court’s first assertion, that Monroe “was a departure from prior practice,” ante, at 695, is patently erroneous. Neither in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943), nor in Holmes v. Atlanta, [*716] 350 U. S. 879 (1955), nor in any of the school board cases cited by the Court, ante, at 663 n. 5, was the question now before us raised by any of th'e litigants or addressed by this Court. As recently as four Terms ago, we said in Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528,…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 79 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence