James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “going forward, state law presumptively does not apply to the enclave”
• analyzing Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 49 S.Ct. 227, 73 L.Ed. 447 (1929)
• upholding state law requiring federal contractor to use planking as walkways even though it “may slightly increase the cost of construction to the government”
• allowing state labor-law liability against a contractor con- structing a federal building
• “Since only the law in effect at the time of the transfer of jurisdiction continues in force, future statutes of the state are not a part of the body of laws in the ceded area.”
• “Since only the law in effect at the time of the transfer of jurisdiction continues in force, future statutes of the state are not a part of the body of laws in the ceded area.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).