COLORADO
v.
NEW MEXICO ET AL.; BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; LUJAN V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL.; ALBERTA GAS CHEMICALS, LTD. V. CELANESE CORP. ET AL.; JERSEY SANITATION CO., INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; PALMGREN ET AL. V. KANSAS EX REL. MURRAY, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF THOMAS COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.; SOFFER V. CITY OF COSTA MESA ET AL.; GABRIEL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY OF MISSOURI ET AL.; KUCHTA ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. ET AL.; CANNON V. CANNON; PAYNE V. COUGHLIN ET AL.; CURTIS V. CAMPBELL-TAGGART, INC., ET AL.; MCDONALD V. DRAPER ET AL.; SMITH V. SMITH; HOOVER V. MISSISSIPPI; BLAIR V. MISSOURI
COLORADO
NEW MEXICO ET AL.; BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; LUJAN V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL.; ALBERTA GAS CHEMICALS, LTD. V. CELANESE CORP. ET AL.; JERSEY SANITATION CO., INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; PALMGREN ET AL. V. KANSAS EX REL. MURRAY, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF THOMAS COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.; SOFFER V. CITY OF COSTA MESA ET AL.; GABRIEL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY OF MISSOURI ET AL.; KUCHTA ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. ET AL.; CANNON V. CANNON; PAYNE V. COUGHLIN ET AL.; CURTIS V. CAMPBELL-TAGGART, INC., ET AL.; MCDONALD V. DRAPER ET AL.; SMITH V. SMITH; HOOVER V. MISSISSIPPI; BLAIR V. MISSOURI
459 U.S. 1229
Supreme Court of the United States (1983)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re McDONALD, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989)…1 (1974) (stay). See McDonald v. Alabama, 480 U. S. 912 (1987); In re McDonald, 479 U. S. 956 (1986); McDonald v. Tennessee, 475 U. S. 1151 (1986); In re McDonald, 471 U. S. 1062 (1985); McDonald v. Leech, 467 U. S. 1257 (1984); McDonald v. Draper, 459 U. S. 1229 (1983); McDonald v. Thompson, 457 U. S. 1126 (1982); McDonald v. Draper, 451 U. S. 933 (1981); McDonald v. Tennessee, 425 U. S. 1000 (1976); McDonald v. Tennessee, 417 U. S. 927 (1974). In the affidavit in support of his present motion to. proceed…
-
Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1984)…above costs in setting rates, is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks “adequate justification for [the] choice of a particular increment above fully allocated costs”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States, 459 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 1238, 75 L.Ed.2d 471 (1983); Public Service Commission v. FERC, 589 F. 2d at 553-54 (citing cases). In the Williams proceeding, FERC “made no attempt at all to verify the accuracy of its prediction that granting pipeline [rate] incentives…
-
Blair v. Armontrout, 916 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1990)…was convicted of Allen’s murder and sentenced to death. The conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Blair, 638 S.W. 2d 739 (Mo.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188, 103 S.Ct. 838, 74 L.Ed.2d 1030, reh’g denied, 459 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 1240, 75 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983). After certiorari was denied, Blair commenced a post-conviction proceeding in state court under Missouri’s Rule 27.26.2 Relief was subsequently denied and that denial was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appea…