DANIELS

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1981)
  …l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist., 78 Ariz. 30, 275 P. 2d 393 (1954); Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist., 92 Ariz. 91, 373 P. 2d 722 (1962), appeal dism’d, 372 U. S. 704 (1963). Of course, these state-court descriptions do not control the question whether the municipal corporation possesses sufficient authority or function to require application of the voting procedures mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. That inq…
• N. Ala. Express, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 576 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …tration, the certificate would be destroyed again because the carrier has no interstate certificate without the possession of an intrastate certificate. (Emphasis supplied.) And in Daniels v. United States, 210 F.Supp. 942, 951 (D.Mont.1962), aff’d 372 U.S. 704, 83 S.Ct. 1018, 10 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963), another three judge district court stated: Under Section 206(a)(1) both prior to amendment and after amendment, intrastate rights and an intrastate certificate form the basis of acquisition of interstate right…
• Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. The City OF Phoenix, 652 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …terpreted § 9 — 516 to prohibit competition between a municipal utility service and a utility owned by another municipality. See City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural and Power District, 92 Ariz. 91, 373 P. 2d 722 (1962), appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 704, 83 S.Ct. 1018, 10 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963). § 9-516(B) assures a municipality the right to acquire the facilities of any public service corporation by eminent domain. Even though Scottsdale obtained the right to service the Johns project property via th…