Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

215 F.2d 954

Docket No. 13982.

Earl M. Cranston v. J. Hugo Aronson

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-09-16

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1954

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Relies on Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman · Alabama State Federation of Labor Local v. McAdory

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1954-09-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ralph J. Anderson, Myles J. Thomas, Helena, Montana, for appellant.

Arnold H. Olsen, Atty. Gen. of Montana, William F. Crowley, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Montana, Helena, Montana, for appellees.

Before HEALY, POPE and FEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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.

¶2

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.

/215/f2d/954 · .json · Public domain