BURNLEY, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

v.

MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO.

Citator

Cited By

• California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1989)
  …herefore held that state indirect purchaser claims that did not satisfy any exception to Illinois Brick were pre-empted. [*100] Appellants appealed to this Court, invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 U. S. 814 (1988), and we now reverse. We should first make it clear exactly what the issue is before us. These cases alleged violations of both the Sherman Act and state antitrust Acts. The settlements, as we understand it, covered both the federal and the s…
• Frazee v. Ill. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 489 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1989)
  …te jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §1257(2), since the state court [*832] rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Illinois’ statutory “good cause” requirement as applied in this case. We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 U. S. 814 (1988), and now reverse. We have had more than one occasion before today to consider denials of unemployment compensation benefits to those who have refused work on the basis of their religious beliefs. In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 410, the Cou…
• Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1989)
  …bruary 9, 1988. Invoking this Court’s appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, the Secretary appealed the decision of the District Court directly to this Court and we noted probable jurisdiction. Sub nom. Burnley v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 488 U. S. 814 (1988). Because the District Court entered its judgment before September 25, 1988, the repeal of 28 U. S. C. § 1252 by Public Law 100-352, §1, 102 Stat. 662, does not affect our jurisdiction in this case. Appeals from district court judgments findin…