KONIGSBERG

v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1957)
  …challenged. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding there was no merit to the claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 352 U. S. 914, and designated amicus curiae to appear in support of appellant. The case having been argued and reargued, we now hold that the registration provisions of the Code as sought to be applied here violate the Due Process requirement of the Fourteenth Am…
• Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn, 354 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1957)
  …d from collecting any amount in excess of $150,000.’ ” 232 F. 2d 573, 577. On rehearing the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed its decision. 235 F. 2d 783. Wé granted certiorari to pass upon the important jurisdictional question presented. 352 U. S. 914. This Court has recently considered the cases which discuss the historical background of the Limited Liability Act, R. S. §§ 4281-4289, as amended, 46 U. S. C. §§ 181-196, in British Transport Commission v. United States, ante, p. 129. It was the…
• Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1957)
  …nited States, 122 F. Supp. 955,1 though two of the three judges indicated that were stare decisis not to control, they would sustain the Commission. 144 F. Supp., at 54. The case is here by appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 914. We sustain the Commission in its assertion of authority to extend this temporary authority beyond 180 days. “License” as used in the Administrative Procedure Act includes “the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registratio…