TENNESSEE
v.
ARKANSAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court appointed a Special Master to manage proceedings and evidence collection.
The court is issuing an order to appoint a Special Master to oversee the case. This Master will have authority to manage pleadings, direct proceedings…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Master Appointment cases and more on FLexlaw
It is ordered that the Honorable Earl R. Larson, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, be appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.
The Master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct.
It is further ordered that if the position of Special Master in this case becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 812.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. United States, 444 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1980)…ique to violations of the “Petite” policy. The Court has also consistently vacated the judgments in other cases which the Solicitor General has represented were in violation of other Justice Department policies. See, e. g., Blucher v. United States, 439 U. S. 1061 (1979) (obscenity prosecution); Nunley v. United States, 434 U. S. 962 (1977) (prosecution for willfully making false statements concerning matters within jurisdiction of Department of Treasury); Margraf v. United States, 414 U. S. 1106 (1973) (pros…
-
Schaefer v. Heckler, 792 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1986)…Furthermore, at the time of his death, Wisconsin law (Wis.Stat. ch. 52) did not provide for posthumous paternity proceedings. See In re Estate of Blumreich, 84 Wis.2d 545, 267 N.W. 2d 870, 873 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom. Caldwell v. Kaquatosh, 439 U.S. 1061, 99 S.Ct. 822, 59 L.Ed.2d 26 (1979). The plaintiff notes, however, that effective July 1, 1981 (eighteen days after Kroll died), section 852.05(1) was amended to read: An illegitimate child or the child’s issue is entitled to take in the same mann…
-
United States v. Walter "Frenchy" Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826 (11th Cir. 1982)…S.Ct. 2215, 48 L.Ed.2d 824 (1976); United States v. McManus, 535 F. 2d 460, 463-64 (8th Cir. 1976) , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1052, 97 S.Ct. 766, 50 L.Ed.2d 769 (1977).7 Bagnell argues that the Supreme Court’s disposition of Blucher v. United States, 439 U.S. 1061, 99 S.Ct. 823, 59 L.Ed.2d 27 (1979), compels a contrary conclusion. He contends that Blucher stands for the proposition that the due process clause precludes forum shopping of any sort in obscenity cases, thus overriding general venue principles whi…
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