CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
v.
TENENBAUM ET UX., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF TENENBAUM, AN INFANT
CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
TENENBAUM ET UX., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF TENENBAUM, AN INFANT
529 U.S. 1098
Supreme Court of the United States (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Ala. Dep't OF Revenue, 550 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2008)…dges, No. 04-2547, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23477, at *16-25 (W.D.La. Mar. 30, 2007); Burlington N. R.R. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 606 N.W. 2d 54, 58-59 (Minn.2000); Burlington N., Santa Fe Ry. v. Lohman, 193 F. 3d 984, 985-86 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 1832, 146 L.Ed.2d 776 (2000). . See, e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Atwood, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1363, 1367 (D.Wyo.2003) (holding that Wyoming's Coal Transportation Tax, although generally applicable, singled out railroads because…