Citation network
Coleman Vs. Miller
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 05, 1939
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 433 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
U.S. 433 (1939) Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
which alone conferred the power to amend and determined the manner in which that power could be exercised. Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
b). The contention to the contrary is answered by our decisions in Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
supra, and Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
Page 307 U. S. 439 supra. In Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State had authority to require the submission of the ratification to a referendum, reversed the judgment. In Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court. That the question of our jurisdiction in Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
of State from proclaiming its ratification and the Attorney General from taking steps to enforce it. Fairchild v. HughesSearch
-
imagine a situation in which the adequacy of the petitioners' interest to invoke our appellate jurisdiction in Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
the admission to the registry of those alleged not to be qualified, is futile. The interest of the plaintiffs in Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
for that purpose, would have been decisive in defeating the ratifying resolution. We are of the opinion that Hawke v. SmithSearch
-
and Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
Interstate Commerce Commission, though the United States refuses to join in the appeal. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Oregon-WashingtonSearch
-
Federal Trade Commission v. CurtisSearch
-
Labor Board v. JonesSearch
-
the injunction is granted, the state board is entitled to appeal. See, for example, South Carolina Highway Department v. BarnwellSearch
-
state court, the statute enables the state officer to seek a reversal by this Court of that decision. In Blodgett v. SilbermanSearch
-
Id., p. 277 U. S. 18 . The question received most careful consideration in the case of Boynton v. HutchinsonSearch
-
U.S. 601. This decision with respect to the scope of our jurisdiction has been followed in later cases. In Morehead v. NewSearch
-
minimum wage law of the State violated the Federal Constitution. This Court decided the case on the merits. In Kelly v. WashingtonSearch
-
alleged invalid outlay of public moneys has no standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts ( Frothingham v. MellonSearch
-
invoke the interposition of a court of equity to enjoin an illegal use of moneys by a municipal corporation. Crampton v. ZabriskieSearch
-
Frothingham v. MellonSearch
-
supra. In Heim v. McCallSearch
-
to involve irreparable loss to the city, and hence to be inimical to the interests of the taxpayer. In Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
not been submitted to the Governor for approval, and refused the writ of mandamus. We affirmed the judgment. Koenig v. FlynnSearch
-
Article v. saysSearch
-
a resolution of ratification. We see no warrant for judicial interference with the performance of that duty. See Leser v. GarnettSearch
-
We have held that the Congress, in proposing an amendment, may fix a reasonable time for ratification. Dillon v. GlossSearch
-
within which ratification may be had. We are unable to agree with that contention. It is true that, in Dillon v. GlossSearch
-
supra, the Court said that nothing was found in Article V whichSearch
-
be within some reasonable time after the proposal. These considerations were cogent reasons for the decision in Dillon v. GlossSearch
-
a reasonable time and determine accordingly the validity of ratifications. That question was not involved in Dillon v. GlossSearch
-
to decide what government is the established one in a State and whether or not it is republican in form. Luther v. BordenSearch
-
Id., p. 48 U. S. 43 . So, in Pacific Telephone Company v. OregonSearch
-
State ex rel. v. PublicSearch
-
See Caffrey v. OklahomaSearch
-
Braxton County Court v. WestSearch
-
Stewart v. KansasSearch
-
Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. MillerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial