DE VEAU

v.

BRAISTED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Citator

Cited By

• Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City OF Detroit, 362 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1960)
  …per firing or the improper use of the equipment upon said vessels.” The Circuit Court refused to grant relief, and the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed, 355 Mich. 227, 93 N. W. 2d 888. An appeal was lodged here, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 361 U. S. 806. In support of the claim that the ordinance cannot constitutionally be applied to appellant’s ships, two basic arguments are advanced. First, it is asserted that since the vessels and their equipment, including their boilers, have been inspected, a…
• De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1960)
  …ork, 5 N. Y. 2d 236, 157 N. E. 2d 165. See also Hazelton v. Murray, 21 N. J. 115, 121 A. 2d 1. Since a statute of a State has been upheld by the highest court of the State against a federal constitutional attack, the case is properly here on appeal. 361 U. S. 806.1 [*147] Due consideration of the constitutional claims that are made requires that § 8 be placed in the context of the structure and history of the legislation of which it is a part. The New York Waterfront Commission Act was an endeavor by New Yor…
• Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. United States, 364 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1960)
  …e defense. See 28 U. S. C. § 2323. A three-judge court, which was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2325 and 2284, denied relief. 170 F. Supp. 38. Our appellate jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 361 U. S. 806. In this Court, the Commission opposes and the United States supports the appellants. There is a preliminary challenge by Pacific Motor and General Motors to appellants’ standing, a challenge which was sustained by two members of the lower court. W…