FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF KIOWA COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1962)
  …aim. 186 F. Supp. 441. The Court of Appeals affirmed, per curiam, 282 F. 2d 352. We granted certiorari “limited to the question of whether petitioner may raise his claim under Federal Criminal Rule 32 (a) in the proceeding which he has now brought.” 365 U. S. 841. Rule 32 (a) in pertinent part provides: “Before imposing sentence the court shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf and to [*426] present any information in mitigation of punishment.” The meaning of this Rul…
• Pub. Affairs Assocs., Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1962)
  …the extent to which “fair use” was open to the plaintiff. 109 U. S. App. D. C. 128, 284 F. 2d 262. By petition for certiorari and cross-petition both parties sought review and because serious public questions were in issue we brought the cases here. 365 U. S. 841. The Declaratory Judgment Act was an authorization, not a command. It gave the federal courts competence to make a declaration of rights; it did not impose a duty to do so. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491, 494, 499; Great Lakes Co. v. H…
• Fed. Land Bank of Wichita v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Kiowa Cnty., 368 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1961)
  …governmental function assigned to the Federal Land Bank. The Court also held that no immunity could be implied. Certiorari was granted in order to determine whether the State had exacted a tax forbidden by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.8 365 U. S. 841. The Supreme Court of Kansas correctly concedes that a federal instrumentality is not subject to the plenary power of the States to tax,9 that the Congress has the power to determine, within the limits of the Constitution, the extent that its instr…