Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zuber Vs. Allen

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 09, 1969

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 3 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Brannan Vs. Stark US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1952
  2. Stark Vs. Wickard US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1944
  3. Udall Vs. Tallman US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  4. U.S. 168 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Zuber v. Allen
    Search
  5. U.S. 168 (1969) Zuber v. Allen
    Search
  6. Pp. 396 U. S. 188 -191. 3. This holding does not depart from the Court's precedents. United States v. Rock
    Search
  7. Royal Co-op., 307 U. S. 533 , distinguished. To the extent that Green Valley Creamery v. United
    Search
  8. broad delegation of power under the National Industrial Recovery Act provisions, 48 Stat. 195. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
    Search
  9. has apparently abandoned all but one of the numerous theories advanced below, and pressed most vigorously in the Blair v. Freeman
    Search
  10. See Addison v. Holly
    Search
  11. attribute to Congress an intent to compensate for inefficient allocation of economic resources. Cf. West Ohio Gas Co. v. Comm'n
    Search
  12. s precedents. No opinion of this Court has ever explicitly approved the nearby differential. Reliance on United States v. Rock
    Search
  13. Id. at 307 U. S. 567 . The narrow reach of our Rock Royal holding was recognized in Stark v. Page
    Search
  14. a competitive disadvantage. Our attention is also drawn to the First Circuit's decision in Green Valley Creamery v. United
    Search
  15. of the nearby differential. To the extent the First Circuit's view is contrary to our present holding, we disapprove it. v. SIGNIFICANCE
    Search
  16. to a departmental construction of its own enabling legislation, especially a contemporaneous construction, see Udall v. Tallman
    Search
  17. Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians
    Search
  18. participated in drafting and directly made known their views to Congress in committee hearings. See Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians
    Search
  19. United States v. American
    Search
  20. general purposes and policies underlying the legislation. Page 396 U. S. 193 See American Power & Light Co. v. SEC
    Search
  21. that this Court found persuasive in Udall v. Tallman
    Search
  22. in connection with particular leases, the Court noted that it would not attribute ratification to Congress. Udall v. Tallman
    Search
  23. a request by the Government. Counsel for the Department has advanced no new theory for sustaining the order. Cf. SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  24. Corp., 318 U. S. 80 , 318 U. S. 2 (1943). Unlike Addison v. Holly
    Search
  25. Court. This is a fair solution, and one this Court will not disturb. Petitioners have been on notice since Blair v. Freeman
    Search
  26. Together with No. 52, Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture v. Allen
    Search
  27. referred us to the testimony and record compiled in an action brought in the Northern District of New York, Cranston v. Freeman
    Search
  28. Lehigh Valley Cooperative v. United
    Search
  29. United States v. Rock
    Search
  30. H. P. Hood & Sons v. United
    Search
  31. courts have also been plagued by the milk problem. See especially Judge Frank's lament, Queensboro Farm Prods. v. Wickard
    Search
  32. Blair v. Freeman
    Search
  33. Green Valley Creamery v. United
    Search
  34. of fluid milk sales. Such was apparently the case in the New Jersey order invalidated by the Court of Appeals in Blair v. Freeman
    Search
  35. of Federal Regulation of Milk Markets, 10 J.Law & Econ. 51, 64-65 (1967). Here, however, unlike the situation in Blair v. Freeman
    Search
  36. To eliminate questions of improper delegation of legislative authority raised by the decisions in Schechter et al. v. United
    Search
  37. H.R.Rep. No. 1241, supra, at 8. See Brannan v. Stark
    Search
  38. Emphasis supplied.) H.R.Rep. No. 1241, supra, at 10. In Brannan v. Stark
    Search
  39. See Brannan v. Stark
    Search
  40. Girouard v. United
    Search
  41. in the wake of unsuccessful attempts to eliminate an offending interpretation by amendment. See, e.g., Girouard v. United
    Search
  42. Judge Frank expressed the view in Queensboro Farm Prods. v. Wickard
    Search
  43. Allegan County v. FPC
    Search
  44. U.S.App.D.C. 229, 414 F.2d 1125 (1969), with Marine Space Enclosures v. FMC
    Search
  45. In May, 1935, this Court held, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
    Search
  46. that the location differential is authorized by the Act finds support in other judicial decisions. In United States v. Rock
    Search
  47. nearby differential of the Boston order involved here was also approved by the First Circuit in Green Valley Creamery v. United
    Search
  48. supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record considered in its entirety. Cf. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  49. In United States v. Butler
    Search
  50. of the A.A.A. invalid, and some district courts then held that the entire Act was invalid. E.g., United States v. David
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial