Citation network
Lake Carriers' Assn. Vs. MacMullan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 1972
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. 498 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullanSearch
-
U.S. 498 (1972) Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullanSearch
-
England v. MedicalSearch
-
court jurisdiction ordinarily is appropriate if the conditions for declaratory or injunctive relief are met. Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
b) The availability of declaratory relief in state courts on federal claims is not a reason for abstention. Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is ripe for decision. We agree. The test to be applied, of course, is the familiar one stated in Maryland Casualty Co. v. PacificSearch
-
Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
of the law a live controversy, and not an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion. See, e.g., Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
state laws). Regarding the present effectiveness, in fact, of a statutory obligation, the plurality opinion in Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
compliance is coerced by the threat of enforcement, and the controversy is both immediate and real. See, e.g., Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
City of Altus, Oklahoma v. CarrSearch
-
judge-made doctrine . . first fashioned in 1941 in Railroad Commission v. PullmanSearch
-
only in narrowly limited 'special circumstances,' Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
of an immediate threat of prosecution does not argue against reaching the merits of appellants' complaint. In Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
if the conditions for declaratory or injunctive relief are met. See generally Page 406 U. S. 510 Perez v. LedesmaSearch
-
of declaratory relief in Michigan courts on appellants' federal claims is wholly beside the point. In Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
U. S. 624 , 111 U. S. 637 . Compare, e.g., Askew v. HargraveSearch
-
constitutional question. Harrison Page 406 U. S. 511 v. NAACPSearch
-
U. S. 167 . Compare Baggett v. BullittSearch
-
of the absence of countervailing considerations that we have found compelling in prior decisions. See, e.g., Harman v. ForsseniusSearch
-
to retain jurisdiction pending institution by appellants of appropriate proceedings in Michigan courts. See Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
ith regard to preemption, the Supreme Court, in Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
S. at 382 U. S. 122 n. 17, 125. Indeed, that was the explicit holding in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSearch
-
In coming to a contrary conclusion, the District Court relied heavily on Public Serv. Comm'n v. WycoffSearch
-
commerce. The District Court's reliance on that decision was misplaced. As the Court said in California Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
of course, is entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief. See generally Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
In the latter regard, see, e.g., Government Employees v. WindsorSearch
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. PacificSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullanSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Railroad Commission v. PullmanSearch
-
Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
In Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
In Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
Compare Baggett v. BullittSearch
-
See Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial