Hunting on the waters in park could significantly interfere with use of park and the purpose for which it was established so federal regulation prohibiting such hunting constituted “needful prescriptions” which overrode state law permitting such hunting
How later courts described this case
- Hunting on the waters in park could significantly interfere with use of park and the purpose for which it was established so federal regulation prohibiting such hunting constituted “needful prescriptions” which overrode state law permitting such hunting
- under Property Clause, Congress can regulate waters beyond territorial limits of United States’ actual ownership
- dismissal for failure to appear for a deposition
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled on other grounds by Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) — not on the Supreme Court's list
Moreover, we have held the evidence sufficient on the second issue where the State’s case at punishment rested almost exclusively on psychiatric testimony, see Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664, 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 2666, 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), overruled on other grounds, Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) (evidence sufficient on second issue in li…
Called into doubt on other grounds by Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990)
See, e.g., Roy Export, 672 F.2d at 1103, n. 17; Rohauer v. Killiam Shows, Inc., 551 F.2d 484, 488 n. 3 (2d Cir.) (tracing the history of statutory and caselaw protection for "derivative works"), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 2666, 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), called into doubt on other grounds by Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 4.12…
The opinion
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.