BEAN DREDGING CORP.

v.

ALABAMA

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• State v. Globe Commc'ns Corp., 622 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
  …p. 11) For other cases recognizing the elimination of any semantic differences between the terms “prior restraint” and subsequent punishment, see, Worrell Newspapers of Indiana, Inc. v. Westhafer, 739 F. 2d 1219, 1222 (7th Cir.1984) (dicta.) aff'd, 469 U.S. 1200, 105 S.Ct. 1155, 84 L.Ed.2d 309 (1985)]; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F. 2d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir.1983). It no longer makes any difference whether the restriction comes in the form of an injunction or in the form of a penal “subsequent punishment” under fede…
• Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1986)
  …1325, 1334 (CA7 1986); Midwest Communications, Inc. v. Minnesota Twins, Inc., 779 F. 2d 444, 452-453 (CA8 1985), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1163 (1986); Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 753 F. 2d 1354, 1358 (CA6), cert. dism’d, 469 U. S. 1200 [*112] (1985); Schoenkopf v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 637 F. 2d 205, 210-211 (CA3 1980). See also S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, pp. 17-18, 50 (1914). Although the references to § 16 in the debates on the passage of the Clayt…
• BIG Horn Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 852 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1988)
  …buyer and seller have "some discretion" to determine their requirements and outputs. E. Farnsworth, Contracts, § 7.17, at 528 (1982); see Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R, Co., 740 F. 2d 780, 789 (10th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1200, 105 S.Ct. 1155, 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985) (“courts will imply a promise that the buyer’s requirements be in good faith’’); Southwest Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Portland Cement Co., 102 F. 2d 630, 632-33 (10th Cir.1939) ("Requirement contract imposes u…