Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co.

459 U.S. 1190, 103 S. Ct. 1173
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 22, 1983·No. No. 82-287·Published·Cited by 31 cases

Opinion

C. A. 9th Cir. Four Members of the Court have disqualified themselves in this case. Because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order.affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon af-firmance by an equally divided court.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190, 103 S. Ct. 1173 (1983).

459 U.S. 1190 (Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DOE 1 v. GitHub, Inc.
N.D. California, 2024
Petricevic v. Shin
D. Hawaii, 2021
Mannkind Securities Actions
835 F. Supp. 2d 797 (C.D. California, 2011)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
854 F. Supp. 2d 756 (C.D. California, 2011)
Association of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy
634 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (E.D. California, 2008)
Hansen v. Schubert
459 F. Supp. 2d 973 (E.D. California, 2006)
Costar Group Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.
172 F. Supp. 2d 747 (D. Maryland, 2001)
Ovando v. City of Los Angeles
92 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (C.D. California, 2000)
Cortez v. MTD Products, Inc.
927 F. Supp. 386 (N.D. California, 1996)
Castano v. American Tobacco Co.
870 F. Supp. 1425 (E.D. Louisiana, 1994)
Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.
158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. California, 1994)
Northrop Corp. v. United States
38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,491 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Croyden Associates v. Alleco
969 F.2d 675 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)
Croyden Associates v. Alleco, Inc.
969 F.2d 675 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)
Mateo v. M/S KISO
805 F. Supp. 792 (N.D. California, 1992)