Citation network
United States Vs. Sharpnack
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 1958
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. 286 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. SharpnackSearch
-
U.S. 286 (1958) United States v. SharpnackSearch
-
See Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
was to adopt for each enclave the offenses made punishable by the State in which it was situated. See United States v. PressSearch
-
of the Assimilative Crimes Act. In 1831, there was certified by a Circuit Court to this Court in United States v. PaulSearch
-
respective States at the time of the enactment of the Assimilative Crimes Act. This Court later so held in Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
to make the federal regulation of local conduct conform to that already established by the State. Cf. Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
upheld the applicability of the Federal Act as it assimilated that subsequent state statute. Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311 , 242 U. S. 326 . See also Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
U. S. 169 Page 355 U. S. 295 (Justice Holmes' dissent), and United States v. HillSearch
-
of gambling devices in interstate commerce, provides that a State may exempt itself from the Act. See Nilva v. UnitedSearch
-
See Hanover National Bank v. MoysesSearch
-
legislation of their own or by determining that federal rent control was no longer necessary. See United States v. ShorelineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Co-op Apartments, Inc., 338 U.S. 897, reversing, per curiam Woods v. ShorelineSearch
-
Congress retains, as it does here, ample power to revise, alter and revoke the local legislation. District of Columbia v. JohnSearch
-
Christianson v. KingSearch
-
Crimes Act where an assimilated state law conflicts with a specific federal criminal statute, cf. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 327 U. S. 711 , or with a federal policy. Cf. Johnson v. YellowSearch
-
Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
Hunt v. UnitedSearch
-
Air Terminal Services, Inc., v. RentzelSearch
-
Oklahoma City v. SandersSearch
-
In Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
depends upon the adoption of state conservation laws. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Hemans v. UnitedSearch
-
make rules governing federal enclaves. I suppose there would be no doubt, at least after Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
the Department of the Interior, or, as in this case, to the States. The Court held in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
used by the State, as Mr. Justice Holmes said in Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
Assimilative Crimes Acts to those state laws in force at the time of enactment of the Federal Act. United States v. PaulSearch
-
Pet. 141. And see Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. SharpnackSearch
-
See United States v. PressSearch
-
United States v. PaulSearch
-
Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
the State. Cf. Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
and United States v. HillSearch
-
the Act. See Nilva v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. ShorelineSearch
-
Woods v. ShorelineSearch
-
District of Columbia v. JohnSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Johnson v. YellowSearch
-
See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Federal Act. United States v. PaulSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial