Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

WisconsIn Vs. Constantineau

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 19, 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

44 entries 6 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. Harman Vs. Forssenius US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1965
  2. Reetz Vs. Bozanich US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1970
  3. Zwickler Vs. Koota US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1967
  4. Cafeteria Workers Vs. Mcelroy US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  5. Wieman Vs. Updegraff US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  6. United States Vs. Lovett US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1946
  7. U.S. 433 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Constantineau
    Search
  8. U.S. 433 (1971) Wisconsin v. Constantineau
    Search
  9. issue of state law, the federal court properly proceeded to determine the federal constitutional claim. Zwickler v. Koota
    Search
  10. power of the States over intoxicating liquors was extremely broad even prior to the Twenty-first Amendment. Crane v. Campbell
    Search
  11. procedure that marks much of the difference between rule by law and rule by fiat. We reviewed in Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy
    Search
  12. that have fallen on one side or the other of the line. See also Sniadach v. Family
    Search
  13. to the citizen, due process comes into play. Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  14. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  15. enmeshed with state law questions. In 1941, we gave vigor to the so-called abstention doctrine in Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  16. by a state court of the underlying state law question. We applied the abstention doctrine most recently in Fornaris v. Ridge
    Search
  17. We ordered the federal courts to stay their hands until the Puerto Rican courts had spoken. Speaking of Reetz v. Bozanich
    Search
  18. have dealt with unresolved questions of state law which only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe. Reetz v. Bozanich
    Search
  19. of Meridian v. Southern
    Search
  20. by an unresolved state law, is whether that Act, on its face, is unconstitutional. As we said in Zwickler v. Koota
    Search
  21. See 18 Stat. 470. We recently reviewed this history in Zwickler v. Koota
    Search
  22. is not necessary whenever a federal court is faced with a question of local law, the classic case being Meredith v. Winter
    Search
  23. on diversity only. Abstention certainly involves duplication of effort and expense and an attendant delay. See England v. Louisiana
    Search
  24. U. S. 411 . That is why we have said that this judicially created rule which stems from Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  25. Co., 312 U. S. 496 , should be applied only where 'the issue of state law is uncertain.' Harman v. Forssenius
    Search
  26. City of Meridian v. Southern
    Search
  27. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639 , 358 U. S. 640 -641 (1959). See also Fornaris v. Ridge
    Search
  28. while the litigants exhausted state court remedies for resolution of their challenge to the statute. See also Fornaris v. Ridge
    Search
  29. on state action contained in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pauly v. Keebler
    Search
  30. of the Constitution. See, e.g., United States v. Lovett
    Search
  31. should not stay their hands to permit state court to Page 400 U. S. 445 interpret state law. Compare Clay v. Sun
    Search
  32. Insurance Office, 363 U. S. 207 , 363 U. S. 213 -227 (1960) (BLACK, J., dissenting), with Burford v. Sun
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Constantineau
    Search
  34. the Twenty-first Amendment. Crane v. Campbell
    Search
  35. Sniadach v. Family
    Search
  36. Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  37. Fornaris v. Ridge
    Search
  38. Speaking of Reetz v. Bozanich
    Search
  39. Meredith v. Winter
    Search
  40. See England v. Louisiana
    Search
  41. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  42. the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pauly v. Keebler
    Search
  43. Compare Clay v. Sun
    Search
  44. Burford v. Sun
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial