BERNARD SCREEN PRINTING CORP.

v.

UNIVERSAL TERMINAL & STEVEDORING CORP.

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• McPHERSON v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1981)
  …ication of quo warranto, there was no right to contest in court any public election, because such a contest is political in nature and therefore outside the judicial power. See Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F. 2d 1169, 1176 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 910, 93 S.Ct. 967, 35 L.Ed.2d 272 (1973); 26 Am. Jur.2d, Elections, §§ 328-29 (2d ed. 1966). As the United States Supreme Court has pointed out under the parallel articles of the federal constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers requires that…
• Duncan, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …d procedures established for the specific purpose of ensuring that the declared winner of an election has actually received the highest number of legally cast ballots. E. g., Hubbard v. Am [*702] merman, 465 F. 2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 910, 93 S.Ct. 967, 35 L.Ed.2d 272 (1973); Johnson v. Hood, 430 F. 2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970). In so doing, we have recognized that the constitution leaves to the states broad power to regulate the conduct of federal and state elections. See generally Rounde…
• United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …bserve that the terminal manager’s motive was not solely to serve the purposes of the government. His initial purpose was to inventory the contents of the damaged cartons. See United States v. Tripp, [*7] 468 F. 2d 569 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 910, 93 S.Ct. 965, 35 L.Ed.2d 272 (1973). Once the nature of the books became apparent, the manager had the additional private motive of seeking to avoid possible criminal liability for the carrier in the interstate transportation of obscene materials.…

  ← 1 / 2 →