Citation network
Paul Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1963
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
-
Paul v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 371 U.S. 245 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Paul v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963) Paul v. UnitedSearch
-
United States for summary judgment. 190 F.Supp. 645. We postponed a determination of jurisdiction to the merits. Paul v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 368 U.S. 965. I Here, as in United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the Armed Services and to regulate federal territory was a substantial federal question, as Penn Dairies, Inc. v. MilkSearch
-
Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 355 U. S. 534 , and United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSearch
-
enforced with respect to sales to the United States, as already noted. In Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
or contract as the exception, prevailed over California's regulated rate system. That case, like United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
was the conflict between federal negotiated rates and state regulated rates in Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 355 U. S. 542 -543. Penn Dairies, Inc. v. MilkSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Control Comm'n, supra, is not opposed. As we noted in United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Comm'n, supra, Congress, after the Penn Dairies decision and before Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
and it has, of course, the force of law. Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
to this federal procurement policy as was California's ratemaking policy in Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
commissary purchasers does not make the commissary any the less a federal agency. Cf. Standard Oil Co. of California v. JohnsonSearch
-
state regulation without specific congressional action. The question was squarely presented in Pacific Coast Dairy v. DepartmentSearch
-
acquire land within a State by purchase or by condemnation without the consent of the State is well established. Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
cl. 17, its possession being simply that of an ordinary proprietor. James v. DravoSearch
-
U. S. 134 , 302 U. S. 141 -142. In that event, however, it was held in Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. LoweSearch
-
upon its retention of jurisdiction over the lands consistent with the federal use. James v. DravoSearch
-
Contracting Co., supra, 302 U. S. 146 -149. Moreover, as stated in James Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
States has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over a federal enclave is a federal question. As stated in Silas Mason Co. v. TaxSearch
-
state law existing at the time of the acquisition remains enforceable, not subsequent laws. See James Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
the case is on all fours with Pacific Coast Dairy v. DepartmentSearch
-
serve the important function of insuring stability in the production and supply of a vital commodity. In Penn Dairies v. MilkSearch
-
of this type. 318 U.S. at 318 U. S. 272 -275. A different result was reached in Public Utilities Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
was barred because it constituted a direct interference with the performance of a vital federal function. M'Culloch v. MarylandSearch
-
impact of valid state economic legislation, then any regulations to the contrary are completely invalid. Williamson v. UnitedSearch
-
Lynch v. TildenSearch
-
United States v. BarnardSearch
-
cl. 17, and therefore are immune from state regulation under the rule of Pacific Coast Dairy v. DepartmentSearch
-
James Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
turn, has the effect of maintaining a certain level of handler prices. See, e. g., Lehigh Valley Coop. Farmers, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
cost would be justified by the Government's interest in maintaining a stable supply of milk. Knudsen Bros. Dairy, Inc. v. BensonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Paul v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Penn Dairies, Inc. v. MilkSearch
-
and United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Standard Oil Co. of California v. JohnsonSearch
-
Pacific Coast Dairy v. DepartmentSearch
-
Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
James v. DravoSearch
-
Silas Mason Co. v. TaxSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial