Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hancock Vs. Train

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 07, 1976

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

39 entries 2 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Wittek US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1949
  2. Kern Limerick, Inc. Vs. Scurlock US Supreme Court · Feb 08, 1954
  3. U.S. 167 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Hancock v. Train
    Search
  4. U.S. 167 (1976) Hancock v. Train
    Search
  5. Last Term, in Train v. Natural
    Search
  6. the District Court ordered the complaint dismissed. Kentucky ex rel. Hancock v. Ruckelshaus
    Search
  7. M'Culloch v. Maryland
    Search
  8. As Mr. Justice Holmes put it in Johnson v. Maryland
    Search
  9. regulation which may touch the activities of the Federal Government. See Penn Dairies Page 426 U. S. 180 v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  10. Alabama v. King
    Search
  11. which they are located. Id. at 89-93. Kentucky, like the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  12. available to the States to enforce that duty. Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  13. empower a State to require federal installations to comply with every measure in its implementation plan. See Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  14. Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  15. dissent. They agree substantially with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  16. In EPA v. California
    Search
  17. Train v. Natural
    Search
  18. had not given interested persons an opportunity to participate in its consideration of the plan. Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA
    Search
  19. F.2d 1238 (1974), cert. pending, No. 7851. See also California v. Stastny
    Search
  20. Mayo v. United
    Search
  21. United States v. United
    Search
  22. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258 , 330 U. S. 272 (1947) (footnote omitted). See United States v. Herron
    Search
  23. Paul v. United
    Search
  24. State Water Resources Control Board v. EPA
    Search
  25. California Pub. Util. Comm'n v. United
    Search
  26. As the Fifth Circuit observed in Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  27. measures which a State is not denied the right to adopt or enforce. Unlike Kentucky and the Fifth Circuit, Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  28. Brief for Petitioner 33, quoting Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  29. See United States v. United
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Hancock v. Train
    Search
  31. Hancock v. Ruckelshaus
    Search
  32. Johnson v. Maryland
    Search
  33. See Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  34. Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA
    Search
  35. California v. Stastny
    Search
  36. See United States v. Herron
    Search
  37. State Water Resources Control Board v. EPA
    Search
  38. Unlike Kentucky and the Fifth Circuit, Alabama v. Seeber
    Search
  39. United States v. Knight
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales