Citation network
Poe Vs. Ullman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 497 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
U.S. 497 (1961) Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
Supreme Court of Errors, in sustaining the demurrers, referred to this local procedural ground, relying on State v. NelsonSearch
-
Conn. 412, 11 A.2d 856, and Tileston v. UllmanSearch
-
allegations might alone raise serious questions of nonjusticiability of appellants' claims. See United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and admitted, technically, by demurrer, any more than the Court is bound by stipulation of the parties. Swift & Co. v. HockingSearch
-
of a century since its enactment, a prosecution for its violation seems never to have been initiated, save in State v. NelsonSearch
-
Nashville, C. & St.L. R. Co. v. BrowningSearch
-
of our jurisdiction to cases and controversies within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution, see Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
demands, actively pressed, which make resolution of the controverted issue a practical necessity. See Little v. BowersSearch
-
California v. SanSearch
-
Massachusetts v. MellonSearch
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
Parker v. CountySearch
-
of Los Angeles, 338 U. S. 327 , 338 U. S. 333 . See also Liverpool, N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
of one who is himself immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm, by the challenged action. Stearns v. WoodSearch
-
Texas v. InterstateSearch
-
Wall. 50, 73 U. S. 75 , approvingly quoting Mr. Justice Thompson, dissenting, in Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaSearch
-
also quoted in New Jersey v. SargentSearch
-
Wood-Paper Co. v. HeftSearch
-
in the derogatory sense of Lord v. VeazieSearch
-
colorable disputes got up to secure an advantageous ruling from the Court. See South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. AmadorSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 305 . The requirement for adversity was classically expounded in Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. WellmanSearch
-
United States v. WestSearch
-
to invoke the power of this Court to obtain constitutional rulings in advance of necessity. Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SecuritiesSearch
-
state courts cannot determine the jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court. Tyler Page 367 U. S. 507 v. JudgesSearch
-
Doremus v. BoardSearch
-
Nashville, C. & St.L. R. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
with respect to a state-originating declaratory judgment proceeding that we said, in Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
the policy against premature constitutional decision. Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
and injunctive relief is not such an adversary case as will be reviewed here. C.I.O. Page 367 U. S. 508 v. McAdorySearch
-
were to deter others from maintaining profitable or advantageous relations with the complainants. See, e.g., Truax v. RaichSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Together with No. 61. Buxton v. UllmanSearch
-
contraceptive devices could not be seized and destroyed as nuisances under the State's seizure statutes. See State v. CertainSearch
-
Braxton County Court v. WestSearch
-
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. JacksonSearch
-
New Jersey v. SargentSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial