Legal Opinion

Voege v. AMERICAN SUMATRA TOBACCO CORPORATION

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided March 21, 1961No. Civ. A. 2301PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Ex Parte PoreskySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Harrison v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored PeopleSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Phillips v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. 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

  1. Voege v. American Sumatra Tobacco CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1965
  2. Morrison v. Sovereign State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1964
  3. Fowler v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1966
  4. Landry v. DaleyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967
  5. North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1961

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API