LIVINGSTON ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

• Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1967)
  …ndiscriminate cast and render unnecessary a decision of appellant’s constitutional challenge. See Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500. The analysis in United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13, aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U. S. 281, is the guide to decision here: “Regard for the interest and sovereignty of the state and reluctance needlessly to adjudicate constitutional issues may require a federal District Court to abstain from adjudication if the parties may avail themselve…
• Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1964)
  …rence to the state courts for construction of the statute should not automatically be made.” NAACP v. Bennett [*508], 360 U. S. 471. See also United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13 (D. C. E. D. S. C.), aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U. S. 281: “Though never interpreted by a state court, if a state statute is not fairly subject to an interpretation which will avoid or modify the federal constitutional question, it is the duty of a federal court to decide the federal question when presente…
• Rosewell v. Lasalle Nat'l Bank, 450 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1981)
  …cause of its failure to pay interest, the State or county could avoid any problems of federally enjoined tax payments by choosing to pay interest. See United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 15 (EDSC 1959) (three-judge court), aff’d per curiam, 364 U. S. 281 (1960). But Congress surely did not intend that the threat of federal injunctive relief be used as a lever to force States to appropriate funds for interest payable to their taxpayers.…

  ← 1 / 2 →