Livingston v. United States, 895
| Decision Date | 27 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 895,895 |
| Citation | 364 U.S. 281,4 L.Ed.2d 1719,80 S.Ct. 1611 |
| Parties | Otis W. LIVINGSTON et al. v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, James M. Windham and James S. Verner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Messrs. Myron C. Baum, Loren K. Olson and Lionel Kestenbaum, for appellees United States and Atomic Energy Commission.
Messrs. Hugh K. Clark and W. Graham Clayton, Jr., for appellee E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
The motion to substitute Harold Murph and Robert C. Wasson in the place of Francis M. Pickney and James W. Crain as parties appellant is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS are of the opinion probable jurisdiction should be noted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sullivan
...the opinion of Judge Haynsworth in United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 11-12 (E.D. S.C.1959), aff'd per curiam, 364 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960). 2 A Stipulation of Facts, dated May 24, 1967, is incorporated into this 3 The "trade and business" proviso is not appli......
-
Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. Cryan
...federal Constitution. Cf. United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13 (D.C.1959), aff'd sub nom., Livingston v. United States, 364 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960), cited with approval in Zwickler v. Koota, supra, 389 U.S. at 250, 88 S. Ct. at Regard for the interest an......
-
United States v. State Tax Commission
...U.S. 650, 59 S.Ct. 592, 83 L.Ed. 1049 (1939); United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 11-12 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff'd, 364 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960). These cases rest in part on the proposition that, absent a strong contrary legislative purpose, the Johnson Act should n......
-
City of Altus, Oklahoma v. Carr
...supplied), and that the case of the United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13 (E.D.S.C., 1959) affirmed 364 U.S. 281, 855, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1719 (1960), stated: "Though never interpreted by a state court, if a state statute is not fairly subject to an interpretation which ......