Johnson v. Haydel
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (Supreme Court of the United States 2007)
- Toomer v. Witsell (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2d Cir. 2001)
- Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Southeast Alabama Solid Waste Disposal Authority (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1993)
- National Solid Waste Management Ass'n v. Voinovich (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1991)
- Solis v. Miles (District Court, S.D. Texas 1981)
- Mapco, Inc. v. Grunder (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1979)
- Christy v. Clark (Md. 1950)
- C & a Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (Supreme Court of the United States 1994)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (Supreme Court of the United States 1992)
- Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Supreme Court of the United States 1992)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
- Hughes v. Oklahoma (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
- Davis v. State (Md. 1978)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1970)
- H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
- United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2d Cir. 2001)
- State v. Ader, No. Cr6-348515 (May 15, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, are engaged in the business of catching and canning oysters for shipment and sale in interstate commerce. Appellees, defendants below, are public officers in Louisiana charged with the duty of enforcing Act No. 258, known as the “ Oyster Act,” passed in July, 1926, entitled: “An Act To declare all oysters and parts thereof in the waters of the State to be the property of the State of Louisiana, and to provide the manner and extent of their reduction to private ownership; to encourage, protect, conserve, regulate and develop the Oyster industry of the State of Louisiana . . .” Plaintiffs sued to enjoin enforcement of certain of its provisions on the ground, among others, that they violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The district judge granted a restraining order pending application for a temporary injunction. There was a hearing before the court, consisting of three judges, organized as required by § 266 of the Judicial Code, U. S. C. Tit. 28, § 380; it set *17 aside the restraining order and denied the injunction. Then, the court allowed this appeal, found .that the plaintiffs will sustain irreparable harm and damage, and stayed the enforcement of the Act pending determination here.
The purpose of this Act is the same in respect of oysters as that of Act. No. 103 in respect of shrimp, considered in Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, ante, p. 1. The challenged provisions of the one closely correspond to those of the other. The two cases present similar issues of law and fact. The showing made by plaintiffs in support of their motion for temporary injunction is substantially the same as was made in that case. Our decision there controls this case.
Decree reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.