Citation network
Perez Vs. Campbell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1971
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. 637 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Perez v. CampbellSearch
-
U.S. 637 (1971) Perez v. CampbellSearch
-
all but certain specified judgments, and is thus unconstitutional as violative of the Supremacy Clause. Kesler v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Public Safety, 369 U. S. 153 , and Reitz v. MealeySearch
-
discharges all but certain specified judgments. The courts below, concluding that this case was controlled by Kesler v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Public Safety, 369 U. S. 153 (1962), and Reitz v. MealeySearch
-
whether they are in conflict. In the present case, both statutes have been authoritatively construed. In Schecter v. KillingsworthSearch
-
P.2d at 140. The Arizona court has consistently adhered to this construction of its legislation, see Camacho v. GardnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
Sandoval v. ChenowethSearch
-
Farmer v. KillingsworthSearch
-
Hastings v. ThurstonSearch
-
Jenkins v. MayflowerSearch
-
Ariz. 287, 290, 380 P.2d 145, 147 (1963), and we are bound by its rulings. See, e.g., General Trading Co. v. StateSearch
-
result in Arizona, as in many other State, is that there is no liability for damages arising from the accident. Heimke v. MunozSearch
-
McDowell v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 234 , 292 U. S. 244 (1934). Accord, e.g., Harris v. Zion'sSearch
-
Stellwagen v. ClumSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Guaranty Co., 236 U. S. 549 , 236 U. S. 554 -555 (1915). There can be no doubt, given Lewis v. RobertsSearch
-
As early as Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
the Court has frequently adhered to this articulation of the meaning of the Supremacy Clause. See, e.g., Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. ContinentalSearch
-
Hill v. FloridaSearch
-
Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Page 402 U. S. 650 Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
resulting from involvement in traffic accidents with uninsured motorists unable to respond to a judgment. Schecter v. KillingsworthSearch
-
general discharge provision enacted by an earlier Congress and interpreted by this Court as early as 1925. See Lewis v. RobertsSearch
-
prohibited by the uniformity requirement in the constitutional authorization to Congress to enact bankruptcy legislation. v. FromSearch
-
Supreme Court as to the purpose of the financial responsibility law is by no means unusual. See, e.g., Sullivan v. CheathamSearch
-
Escobedo v. StateSearch
-
People v. NothausSearch
-
Dempsey v. TynanSearch
-
City of St. Paul v. HoffmannSearch
-
Rosenblum v. GriffinSearch
-
Gillaspie v. DepartmentSearch
-
U. S. 155 -158. This jurisdictional part of the decision was overruled almost four years later in Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
Miller v. AnckaitisSearch
-
detect little genuine public concern about what takes place in our very midst and on our daily travel routes. See Tate v. ShortSearch
-
facts, of course, are only alleged, but for purposes of the motion to dismiss, we are to accept them as true. Cooper v. PateSearch
-
New Lamp Chimney Co. v. AnsoniaSearch
-
acknowledges in his brief here, the argument is not new. It was raised with respect to a New York statute in Reitz v. MealeySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial