MOBIL ALASKA PIPELINE CO.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.; EXXON PIPELINE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; BP PIPELINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; AND ARCO PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.
MOBIL ALASKA PIPELINE CO.
UNITED STATES ET AL.; EXXON PIPELINE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; BP PIPELINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; AND ARCO PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.
437 U.S. 902
Supreme Court of the United States (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Institutionalized Juveniles in Pennsylvania institutions for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded v. Secretary OF Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897 (3d Cir. 1985)…lated due process standards. See id. at 43-45, 47. Defendants once again appealed the decision of the three-judge court, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on June 19, 1978. Secretary of Public Welfare v. Institutionalized Juveniles, 437 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3084, 57 L.Ed.2d 1132 (1978). G. The 1978 Regulations Prior to oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Secretary promulgated new regulations further implementing the 1976 Act. 8 Pa.Admin.Bull. 2432 (1978) (“1978 Regulations”).12 The…
-
Secretary of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania v. Institutionalized Juveniles, 442 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1979)…eeks from the date of the initial admission. App. 1097a-1098a.7 Appellants, all of the defendants before the District Court, appealed the judgment. We noted probable jurisdiction, and [*646] consolidated the case with Parham v. J. R., ante, p. 584. 437 U. S. 902. II (a) Much of what we .said in Parham v. J. R. applies with equal force to this case. The liberty rights and interests of the appellee children, the prerogatives, responsibilities, and interests of the parents, and the obligations and interests o…
-
Ass'n Against Discrimination IN Emp. v. City OF Bridgeport, 594 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1979)…ity of [*310] California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974). See also Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 566 F. 2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 437 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3087, 57 L.Ed.2d 1132 (June 19, 1978) (argued Dec. 5, 1978, see 47 U.S.L.W. 3406); Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 563 F. 2d 216 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 608, 58 L.Ed.2d 676 (1978). We recognize, howe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence