Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company
Significance, Race, Economics, And State Law, The Abstention Doctrine Since Pullman
Railroad Commission of Texas, et al.
Pullman Company, et al.
That under Texas law it had authority to regulate Pullman sleepers, and that a federal district court erred in preventing enforcement of this regulation.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Cecil A. Morgan, Cecil C. Rotsch
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, James Clark McReynolds, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Harlan Fiske Stone
None (Owen Josephus Roberts did not participate)
Date of Decision
3 March 1941
Reversed the lower court's order to enjoin enforcement of the regulation and directed the case be heard in the state courts.
- Harrison v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 360 U.S. 167 (1959).
- Stuart Circle Parish v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Richmond, 946 F.Supp. 1225 (1996).
- Roe v. City of Milwaukee, WL 790728 (E.D.Wis. 1998).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1997.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Nowak, John E., Ronald D. Rotunda, and J. Nelson Young. Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1984.
- Robert W. Grow Court-Martial: 1952 - Parts Of Diary Published, Grow Is Charged, Debate On The Classification Of The Diary, Suggestions For Further Reading
- Pollock v. Williams - Significance, Emanuel Pollock's $5 Debt
- Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company - Significance
- Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company - Race, Economics, And State Law
- Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company - The Abstention Doctrine Since Pullman
- Other Free Encyclopedias