MORTON SALT CO.
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1965-10-25
No. 275
Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
382 U.S. 44 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S. 485, 493, 494; Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U. S. 208, 221-227; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 809-810; Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U. S. 537, 540-542.

Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Robinson, 698 F.2d 448 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
    …2d 662, 667 (9th Cir.1975) (authorization of grant of immunity continues under successor); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 216 F.Supp. 250, 256 (D.Minn.1962) (authority of Justice Department attorneys to appear before grand jury continues), aff’d, 382 U.S. 44, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 L.Ed.2d 36 (1963). However, arguments about the need for administrative continuity miss the mark in this case. The power to authorize electronic surveillance applications is uniquely circumscribed by statute. Congress has identifi…
  • Infelice v. United States, 528 F.2d 204 (7th Cir. 1975)
    …ally retained by the Department. Its stated purpose was to grant to the “special attorneys” the same rights, powers and authority which the United States Attorneys possessed. United States v. Morton Salt Company, 216 F.Supp. 250 (D.Minn.1962), aff’d 382 U.S. 44 (1965). The Act has been construed broadly in a series of cases: In United States v. Amazon Industrial Chemical Corp., 55 F. 2d 254, 256-257 (D.Md.1931), the failure to specify the statute under which the special attorney was to act was held not to…
  • Hardy Salt Co. v. State OF Ill., 377 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1967)
    …tal of the three litigating defendants on June 7, 1962. The government civil suit, however, terminated in a judgment against Morton and Diamond, which was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court on October 25, 1965. Morton Salt Co. v. United States, 382 U.S. 44, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 L.Ed.2d 36 (1965). On August 23, 1966, subsequent to the filing of Judge Larson’s opinion on July 28, 1966, but within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Morton Salt, appellees filed their respective actions against appell…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw