TAYLOR

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• Atchison v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1973)
  …rate for all of the services (the aggregate of the severed and the nonseveredj — the principle is the same.” (Emphasis added.) A few paragraphs later, the court repeated the same alternate approach. This Court affirmed the District Court summarily. 400 U. S. 932 (1970). In the litigation now before us the total of the line-haul rate and the separate in-transit charge will in no case exceed what the Commission has heretofore found to be a reasonable charge for the aggregate service. The maximum permissible…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1975)
  …religious uses. Id., at 38-39. This Court’s affirmance of the result in Mar-burger was a decision on the merits, entitled to precedential weight. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 670-671; cf. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. United States, 400 U. S. 932, 935 (White, J., dissenting from summary affirmance). The appellants do not challenge, and we do not question, the authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to make free auxiliary services available to- all students in the Commonwealth, includ…
• Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973)
  …without commenting on the issue, and Wyman'w&s a per curiam affirmance on the authority of Shapiro), a summary affirmance is a decision on the merits having precedential value. E. g., Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 400 U.S. 932, 9.35, 91 S.Ct. 235, 27 L.Ed.2d 240 (Justice White dissenting from the summary affirmance); Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (Justices Burton and Clark dissenting from the summary affirmance). See Stern and Gressman, S…