Voege v. AMERICAN SUMATRA TOBACCO CORPORATION
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Senior District Judge.
1. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281 provides means of avoiding conflict between federal and state courts by special procedures where the constitutionality of a state statute is questioned. 1 Moore, Federal Prac. ¶ 0.205. The federal statute was designed to secure the public interest in limited cases of special importance in specific areas, as established by Congress. 8 Mr. Justice Frankfurter the Phillips case 9 wrote: in
“To bring this procedural device into play — to dislocate the normal operations of the system of lower federal courts and thereafter to come directly to this…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Ex Parte PoreskySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Harrison v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored PeopleSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Phillips v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- California Water Service Co. v. City of ReddingSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Voege v. American Sumatra Tobacco CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1965
- Morrison v. Sovereign State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1964
- Fowler v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1966
- Landry v. DaleyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967
- North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.