From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Livingston v. United States

U.S.
Jun 27, 1960
364 U.S. 281 (1960)

Summary

finding "the explosion [at] . . . Hiroshima . . . led . . . Congress to give careful consideration to the needs . . . of the nation for the use, control and development of this new source of energy. . . . to insure that this great power of destruction should not be misused . . . [and Congress] conclul[ded] that a strict governmental monopoly and rigid controls were required"

Summary of this case from Abraham v. Hodges

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

No. 895.

Decided June 27, 1960.

179 F. Supp. 9, affirmed.

Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and James M. Windham and James S. Verner, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Myron C. Baum, Loren K. Olson and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States and the Atomic Energy Commission, appellees.

Hugh K. Clark and W. Graham Claytor, Jr. for E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co., appellee.


The motion to substitute Harold Murph and Robert C. Wasson in the place of Francis M. Pickney and James W. Crain as parties appellant is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion probable jurisdiction should be noted.


Summaries of

Livingston v. United States

U.S.
Jun 27, 1960
364 U.S. 281 (1960)

finding "the explosion [at] . . . Hiroshima . . . led . . . Congress to give careful consideration to the needs . . . of the nation for the use, control and development of this new source of energy. . . . to insure that this great power of destruction should not be misused . . . [and Congress] conclul[ded] that a strict governmental monopoly and rigid controls were required"

Summary of this case from Abraham v. Hodges

In Livingston v. United States, 364 U.S. 281 (1960), summarily aff'g 179 F. Supp. 9 (EDSC 1959), the Court, without opinion or citation, approved the invalidation of a state use tax as applied to a federal contractor.

Summary of this case from United States v. New Mexico

In Livingston a federal contractor was found to be a tax-exempt procurement agent because, among other things, its contract provided for only a one-dollar fee and was undertaken out of a "high sense of public responsibility" and "without hope of gain."

Summary of this case from United States v. State of N. M
Case details for

Livingston v. United States

Case Details

Full title:LIVINGSTON ET AL. v . UNITED STATES ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 27, 1960

Citations

364 U.S. 281 (1960)
80 S. Ct. 1611

Citing Cases

United States v. New Mexico

See United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452, 462-463, n. 10 (1977). In Livingston v. United States,…

United States v. Boyd

United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 U.S. 484, 486.The Government's reliance on United States v.…