 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Landis v. N. Am. Co., No. 221,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 7, 1936, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent sued to enjoin enforcement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (the Act) on the ground that it was unconstitutional and void. Petitioner successfully moved to stay the proceedings pending a decision in another suit to restrain enforcement of the statute, until the validity of the Act was determined in that suit by the Supreme Court or otherwise terminated. An intermediate appellate judgment reversed an order staying respondents' suits until the final decision in another suit, but the Supreme Court reversed. The court held that although the district court had the inherent power to stay respondents' suits pending a decision in the other suit, discretion was abused because the stay was not kept within the bounds of moderation. Specifically, the limits of a fair discretion were exceeded insofar as the stay was to continue in effect after the decision in the other suit and until the determination by the court of any appeal therefrom. The court fixed the uttermost limit for the stay as the date of the first decision in the suit selected as a test.
|
|||||
| United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., No. 98,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 21, 1936, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A joint resolution of Congress authorized the President to declare the sale of arms to certain countries illegal. Though the President initially issued a proclamation that declared that sales to Bolivia were unlawful, the President later revoked his proclamation. Defendants allegedly sold arms to Bolivia before the revocation of the proclamation, and demurred to the charges against them on the ground that the revocation of the proclamation precluded their prosecution. On appeal, the granting of defendants' demurrer was reversed and the case was remanded. The President had broad discretion to determine the benefit of enforcing a joint resolution on international relations. The power to make decisions regarding international affairs was vested in the President, especially in areas that could lead to embarrassment of or security issues for the nation. Defendants' argument that the power to declare certain arms sales illegal was invalidly delegated to the President was unjustified. The revocation of the proclamation did not change defendants' violation of the joint resolution; the revocation only stopped the joint resolution from being enforced against sales to Bolivia in the future.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
