28 EAST JACKSON ENTERPRISES, INC.

v.

CULLERTON, COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR, ET AL.; SMITH V. STYNCHCOMBE, SHERIFF

Citator

Cited By

• Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1977)
  …d in Hicks, “to treat our summary dispositions of appeals as conclusive precedents regarding constitutional challenges to like state statutes or ordinances.” 428 U. S., at 913. The Court by not relying on our summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera, 424 U. S. 959 (1976), and Auerbach v. Mandel, 409 U. S. 808 (1972), effectively embraces that view, and vividly exposes the ambiguity inherent in summary dispositions and the nature of the detailed analysis that is [*180] essential before a decision can be made w…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …e Court in Mandel v. Bradley, 1977, 432 U.S. 173, 97 S.Ct. 2238, 53 L.Ed.2d 199. In Mandel the lower court struck down Maryland’s law regulating access to the ballot. The lower court relied on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Tucker v. Salera, 1976, 424 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1451, 47 L.Ed.2d 727, aff’g, E.D.Pa.1975, 399 F.Supp. 1258. This reliance, the Court held, was misplaced: “Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presente…
• Lecates v. Just. OF the Peace Court NO. 4 OF the State OF Del., 637 F.2d 898 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …treat our summary dispositions of appeals as conclusive precedents regarding constitutional challenges to like state statutes or ordinances.” 428 U.S. at 913, 96 S.Ct. at 3229. The Court by not relying on our summary affirmance in Tucker v. Salera, 424 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1451, 47 L.Ed.2d 727 (1976), and Auerbach v. Mandel, 409 U.S. 808, 93 S.Ct. 55, 34 L.Ed.2d 69 (1972), effectively embraces that view, and vividly exposes the ambiguity inherent in summary dispositions and the nature of the detailed analysi…