Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chrysler Corp. Vs. Brown

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 1979

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

65 entries 10 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Cort Vs. Ash US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1975
  2. J. I Case Co. Vs. Borak US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  3. Faa Administrator Vs. Robertson US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1975
  4. Epa Vs. Mink US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  5. Foti Vs. Ins US Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1963
  6. United States Vs. Mersky US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1960
  7. Free Vs. Bland US Supreme Court · May 21, 1962
  8. United States Vs. Zucca US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1956
  9. Morton Vs. Ruiz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1974
  10. Wong Yang Sung Vs. Mcgrath US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  11. U.S. 281 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Chrysler Corp. v. Brown
    Search
  12. U.S. 281 (1979) Chrysler Corp. v. Brown
    Search
  13. sides appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment. Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger
    Search
  14. any means dispositive, it does shed some light on the intent of the enacting Congress. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
    Search
  15. FHA Page 441 U. S. 301 v. The
    Search
  16. But in Morton v. Ruiz
    Search
  17. of such power by the Congress and subject to limitations which that body imposes. As this Court noted in Batterton v. Francis
    Search
  18. the promulgation of these regulations must conform with any procedural requirements imposed by Congress. Morton v. Ruiz
    Search
  19. NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon
    Search
  20. Possibly the best illustration remains Mr. Justice Frankfurter's opinion for the Court in National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  21. Inc. v. Department
    Search
  22. rulemaking. In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural
    Search
  23. Id. at 435 U. S. 547 (quoting Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
    Search
  24. b). As we observed in Batterton v. Francis
    Search
  25. that the Trade Secrets Act affords a private right of action to enjoin disclosure in violation of the statute. In Cort v. Ash
    Search
  26. a)(1), (2). In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe
    Search
  27. Compare Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Schlesinger
    Search
  28. F.2d 1190 (CA4 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 924 (1977), with Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Eckerd
    Search
  29. General Dynamics Corp. v. Marshall
    Search
  30. Pennzoil Co. v. FPC
    Search
  31. NLRB v. Robbins
    Search
  32. Department of Air Force v. Rose
    Search
  33. NLRB v. Sears
    Search
  34. Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman
    Search
  35. Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft
    Search
  36. We observed in Department of Air Force v. Rose
    Search
  37. was repealed with passage of the FOIA. See EPA v. Mink
    Search
  38. E.g., Batterton v. Francis
    Search
  39. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Scarlett
    Search
  40. Paul v. United
    Search
  41. Public Utilities Comm'n of California v. United
    Search
  42. denominated as statute prohibiting the disclosure of certain information). In FAA Administrator v. Robertson
    Search
  43. in the legislative process that resulted in the Act's enactment in 1946. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural
    Search
  44. Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians
    Search
  45. Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pa. v. Secretary
    Search
  46. a) was the authority for predecessors of Executive Order 11246. Farmer v. Philadelphia
    Search
  47. Forks v. Texas
    Search
  48. CA5), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 977 (1967). But as the Third Circuit noted in Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pa. v. Secretary
    Search
  49. is inconsistent with these titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See, e.g., Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pa. v. Secretary
    Search
  50. See Farkas v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial