Citation network
Alabama Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 05, 1934
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. 286 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. 286 (1934) Alabama v. ArizonaSearch
-
of its interstate markets for goods produced in its prison farms and factories, held multifarious. Bitterman v. LouisvilleSearch
-
having regard to the facts alleged, circumstances disclosed, and the character of the relief sought. Oliver v. PiattSearch
-
Brown v. GuaranteeSearch
-
it stood before amendment, against the objection of misjoinder of parties defendant and of causes of action. Cf. Hale v. AllinsonSearch
-
products in the five states named. If one is repugnant to the commerce clause, all transgress. Alabama cites Bitterman v. LouisvilleSearch
-
This Court may not be called on to give advisory opinions or to pronounce declaratory judgments. Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
Willing v. ChicagoSearch
-
Auditorium Assn., 277 U. S. 274 , 277 U. S. 288 , and cases cited. Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. v. WallaceSearch
-
in respect of controversies between states will not be exerted in the absence of absolute necessity. Louisiana v. TexasSearch
-
equity by one person against another would justify an interference by this Court with the action of a state. Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
New York v. NewSearch
-
will not be granted unless the threatened injury is clearly shown to be of serious magnitude and imminent. Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
than that generally required to be borne by one seeking an injunction in a suit between private parties. Connecticut v. MassachusettsSearch
-
tested by the contracting company, that apparently is directly concerned, or by a seller of such goods. Cf. Louisiana v. TexasSearch
-
to suffer great loss or any serious injury. If filed, the bill would have to be dismissed for want of equity. Florida v. MellonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. ArizonaSearch
-
Bitterman v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Cf. Hale v. AllinsonSearch
-
Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
-
Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. v. WallaceSearch
-
Louisiana v. TexasSearch
-
Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
Connecticut v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Cf. Louisiana v. TexasSearch
-
Florida v. MellonSearch
-
Shields v. ThomasSearch
-
North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial