Earl M. Cranston v. J. Hugo Aronson

Ninth Circuit

Earl M. Cranston v. J. Hugo Aronson

215 F.2d 954

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1954

Docket13982_1

StatusPublished

This text of 215 F.2d 954 (Earl M. Cranston v. J. Hugo Aronson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earl M. Cranston v. J. Hugo Aronson, 215 F.2d 954 (9th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Murray in the District Court, Cranston v. Aronson, 124 F.Supp. 453.

During the argument in this court it was disclosed that the Supreme Court of Montana now has under submission a cause involving among others, the same question which appellant sought to present in the court below. As appellant, who is only a prospective bidder for a state lease, must lean heavily upon the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, the fact that the merits of appellant’s complaint have been argued in the state court is an additional reason for the district court’s denial of relief. “The extent to which the declaratory judgment procedure may be used in the federal courts to control state action lies in the sound discretion of the Court.” Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 471, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 1394, 89 L.Ed. 1725. Cf. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 298, 300, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Murray in the District Court, Cranston v. Aronson, 124 F.Supp. 453.

During the argument in this court it was disclosed that the Supreme Court of Montana now has under submission a cause involving among others, the same question which appellant sought to present in the court below. As appellant, who is only a prospective bidder for a state lease, must lean heavily upon the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, the fact that the merits of appellant’s complaint have been argued in the state court is an additional reason for the district court’s denial of relief. “The extent to which the declaratory judgment procedure may be used in the federal courts to control state action lies in the sound discretion of the Court.” Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 471, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 1394, 89 L.Ed. 1725. Cf. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 298, 300, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 F.2d 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earl-m-cranston-v-j-hugo-aronson-ca9-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack