CALIFORNIA
v.
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON
358 U.S. 64
Supreme Court of the United States (1958)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 2d 106 · 79 S. Ct. 116 · 1958 U.S. LEXIS 176 · SCDB 1958-010
Cited by 42 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. U. S. Const., Amend. XXI, § 2; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U. S. 391; Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U. S. 395; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401; State Board of California v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
United States v. Weissman, 135 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…rmination has been made with respect to mechanics’ liens under state law. United States v. Colotta, 350 U.S. 808, 100 L.Ed. 725, 76 S.Ct. 82, including one decision applying specifically to the State of Florida, United States v. Hulley, 358 U.S. 66, 3 L.Ed.2d 106, 79 S.Ct. 117. The Florida decisions on the same case are Fla., 102 So. 2d 599, and Fla., 111 So. 2d 38. Federal Court decisions specifically holding that a statutory landlord’s lien for rent was not a specific and perfected lien as a matter of fed…
-
Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Marlin Dev. Co., 24 Fla. Supp. 145 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)…es that though prior in time of record to the tax lien, his is an inchoate right which did not materialize until claim was filed in this suit—and therefore the intervening filing of the tax lien places it ahead of him. U. S. v. Hulley, 358 U. S. 66, 3 L. Ed. 2d 106, 799 S. Ct. 117; U. S. v. Weissmann (Fla. App. 2d 1961), 135 So. 2d 235, 238. The second mortgagee cites Manchester Federal S. & L. Assoc, v. Emery-Waterhouse Co. (S. Ct. N.H. 1959), 153 A. 2d 918, which is an excellent opinion on priorities of lie…
-
California v. LaRUE, 409 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1972)…circumstances where liquor may be dispensed within its borders. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35; Hostetter v. Idlewild Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 330; Dept. of Revenue v. James Beam Co., 377 U. S. 341, 344, 346; California v. Washington, 358 U. S. 64; Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U. S. 132; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401; State Board v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59. I should suppose, therefore, that nobody would question the power of California to prevent the sale of liquor by…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. v. Young's Mkt. Co., 299 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1936)
- Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1938)
- Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1939)
- Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1939)