Citation network
United States Vs. Clark
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 26, 1980
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
-
U.S. 23 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. ClarkSearch
-
U.S. 23 (1980) United States v. ClarkSearch
-
F.2d 343. Ignoring the statutory issue, the court granted relief on the authority of its earlier decision in Gentry v. UnitedSearch
-
see id. at 439 U. S. 279 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). See also Trimble v. GordonSearch
-
of Congress if a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided. E.g., Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
New York City Transit Authority v. BeazerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
foreclosed from considering the statutory question merely because the lower court failed to address it. Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
that the classification is not narrowly tailored as a means of furthering either goal. As we recognized in Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
plainly did not require the Government to appeal before final judgment was entered. Cf. United States v. CarloSearch
-
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
American Foreign S. S. Co. v. MatiseSearch
-
Toledo Scale Co. v. ComputingSearch
-
It is irrelevant that the Court of Claims reached this holding by relying on its earlier decision in Gentry v. UnitedSearch
-
in a civil action in which the United States is a party, not just for the first such decision. Cf. Garment Workers v. DonnellySearch
-
requirement violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Gentry v. UnitedSearch
-
Jenkins v. U.SSearch
-
Proctor v. UnitedSearch
-
Tenny v. UnitedSearch
-
Myers v. CommissionersSearch
-
See Visor v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157 , 392 U. S. 170 (1968) (quoting Rainwater v. UnitedSearch
-
with the 1956 enactment. We do not disregard this evidence of the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., Batterton v. FrancisSearch
-
of Claims below had both jurisdiction to entertain their claims and authority to grant recovery. See United States v. TestanSearch
-
Eastport S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
and awarded relief to the appellee's children based on the remaining language in the statute. Cf. United States v. TestanSearch
-
children to demonstrate actual dependency even though legitimate children are presumed to be dependent, Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
U. S. 36 must demonstrate such dependency are substantially related to achievement of the statutory goal. Lalli v. LalliSearch
-
Trimble v. GordonSearch
-
to any application of the constitutional issue decided by the Court Page 445 U. S. 37 of Claims in Gentry v. UnitedSearch
-
limitations, our standard practice is to remand the case for consideration of the statutory question. In Youakim v. MillerSearch
-
Id. at 425 U. S. 236 . See also Wyman v. RothsteinSearch
-
Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-DetroitSearch
-
Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129 (1946). In Richardson v. MorrisSearch
-
its constitutional holding, both as a matter of prudential considerations as well as jurisdiction. See United States v. TestanSearch
-
remanded a case to the Court of Claims for consideration of an issue not resolved by that court. Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. ClarkSearch
-
Gentry v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., Califano v. YamasakiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial