# Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 30, 1972 · 406 U.S. 498

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424895

## Case

- **Full name:** LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSN, Et Al v. MacMULLAN Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 30, 1972
- **Citations:** 406 U.S. 498; 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20283; 4 ERC (BNA) 1129; 92 S. Ct. 1749; 32 L. Ed. 2d 257; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 115
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall, Black-Mun, Rehnquist, Powell, Burger
- **Cited by:** 564 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424895

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that an "actual controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act exists when " 'there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment' "
- holding that the district court should have abstained pursuant to Pullman in order to allow the state courts to resolve ambiguities in the state law that were sufficiently likely to modify the federal questions, including preemption, raised by the appellants
- holding that ancillary claims are properly before three-judge district court “so long as there is a nonfrivolous constitutional claim that constitutes a justiciable controversy”
- stating that the ripeness doctrine asks whether "there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins, concurring in the result.
I agree that the complaint presents an actual controversy and that the District Court properly abstained. I therefore concur in the result and join the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424895. Public record. Not legal advice.