Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dames and Moore Vs. Regan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 02, 1981

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

67 entries 4 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Pink US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1942
  2. Orvis Vs. Brownell US Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1953
  3. Cities Service Co. Vs. Mcgrath US Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1952
  4. Zemel Vs. Rusk US Supreme Court · May 03, 1965
  5. Dames & Moore v. Regan
    Search
  6. U.S. 654 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Dames & Moore v. Regan
    Search
  7. U.S. 654 (1981) Dames & Moore v. Regan
    Search
  8. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  9. to enter into executive agreements without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate. See, e.g., United States v. Pink
    Search
  10. aware of the necessity to rest decision on the narrowest possible ground capable of deciding the case. Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  11. have been reflected in opinions by Members of this Court more than once. The Court stated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright
    Search
  12. s authority to issue the Executive Orders and regulations challenged by petitioner. See Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  13. American Int'l Group, Inc. v. Islamic
    Search
  14. with the instant questions, have all agreed that much relevant analysis is contained in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  15. Springer v. Philippine
    Search
  16. The two Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue agreed with this contention. In Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  17. F.2d at 806-807 (emphasis in original). In American Int'l Group, Inc. v. Islamic
    Search
  18. sustain the broad authority of the Executive when acting under this congressional grant of power. See, e.g., Orvis v. Brownell
    Search
  19. Propper v. Clark
    Search
  20. in American courts. This is the view of all the courts which have considered the question. Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  21. The Marschalk Co. v. Iran
    Search
  22. Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Social
    Search
  23. of action taken by the Executive. Haig v. Agee
    Search
  24. between the two sovereigns. United States v. Pink
    Search
  25. of power to enter into executive agreements without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate. In United States v. Pink
    Search
  26. Ozanic v. United
    Search
  27. modifying federal court jurisdiction and directing the courts to apply a different rule of law. See United States v. Schooner
    Search
  28. to make binding determinations of the sovereign immunity to be accorded foreign states. See Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  29. United States v. Midwest
    Search
  30. Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 , 236 U. S. 474 (1915). See Haig v. Agee
    Search
  31. Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  32. Brief for Federal Respondents 65. Accord, Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan
    Search
  33. Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 , 419 U. S. 124 -125 (1974), quoting Cherokee Nation v. Southern
    Search
  34. Cities Service Co. v. McGrath
    Search
  35. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina
    Search
  36. not act as a bar to petitioner's action in the Court of Claims. Tr. of Oral Arg. 392, 47. We agree. See United States v. Weld
    Search
  37. United States v. Old
    Search
  38. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United
    Search
  39. Complaint in Dame & Moore v. Atomic
    Search
  40. We likewise reject the contention that Orvis v. Brownell
    Search
  41. and Zittman v. McGrath
    Search
  42. Judge Mikva, in his separate opinion in American Int'l Group, Inc. v. Islamic
    Search
  43. In Haig v. Agee
    Search
  44. Ante at 453 U. S. 301 , quoting Zemel v. Rusk
    Search
  45. specific property for the satisfaction of a claim is a property right compensable under the Fifth Amendment, Armstrong v. United
    Search
  46. Louisville Bank v. Radford
    Search
  47. which petitioner obtained its attachments suffices to render revocable the attachments themselves. See Marschalk Co. v. Iran
    Search
  48. As the Court held in Armstrong v. United
    Search
  49. The Court unanimously reaffirmed this understanding Of the Just Compensation Clause in the recent case Of Agins v. City
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Dames & Moore v. Regan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial