Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cftc Vs. Schor

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 07, 1986

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

77 entries 10 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Machinists Vs. Street US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  2. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. Vs. Fcc US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1969
  3. United States Vs. Will US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1980
  4. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  5. Duncan Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 20, 1968
  6. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  7. Heckler Vs. Mathews US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1984
  8. United States Vs. Griffin US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1938
  9. Katchen Vs. Landy US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1966
    Relied / Followed
  10. Bowsher Vs. Synar US Supreme Court · Jul 07, 1986
  11. U.S. 833 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court CFTC v. Schor
    Search
  12. U.S. 833 (1986) Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
    Search
  13. had filed a diversity action in Federal District Court to recover the debit balance. ContiCommodity Services, Inc. v. Mortgage
    Search
  14. insisted that the debit balance resulted from Schor's trading, and was therefore a simple debt owed by Schor. Schor v. Commodity
    Search
  15. whether CFTC could constitutionally adjudicate Conti's counterclaims in light of Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon
    Search
  16. Thomas v. Union
    Search
  17. III objections, and thus unnecessary constitutional adjudication, could be avoided. Ibid. (quoting Ralpho v. Bell
    Search
  18. U. S. 740 , 367 U. S. 749 (1961). See also NLRB v. Catholic
    Search
  19. by which the constitutional question can be avoided. Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  20. U. S. 22 (1932). See also Machinists v. Street
    Search
  21. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  22. of State, 378 U. S. 500 , 378 U. S. 515 (1964) (quoting Scales v. United
    Search
  23. States, 367 U. S. 203 , 367 U. S. 211 (1961)). See also Heckler v. Mathews
    Search
  24. as the principal claim, and requires resolution of many of the same disputed factual issues. Friedman v. Dean
    Search
  25. it is entrusted to administer, considerable weight must be accorded the CFTC's position. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  26. reparations dispute, but has not overruled the CFTC's assertion of jurisdiction. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  27. NLRB v. Bell
    Search
  28. Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267 , 416 U. S. 274 -275 (1974) (footnotes omitted). See also FDIC v. Philadelphia
    Search
  29. we cannot but deem that construction virtually conclusive. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. . Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  30. supra, at 395 U. S. 380 -381. See also Bell v. New
    Search
  31. evidence of congressional intent because that intent was not specifically embodied in a statutory mandate. See Heckler v. Mathews
    Search
  32. Thomas, supra, at 473 U. S. 587 . See also Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  33. Cf. Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  34. the procedures by which civil Page 478 U. S. 849 and criminal matters must be tried. See, e.g., Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  35. WHITE, J., dissenting). See also Thomas, supra, at 473 U. S. 584 , 473 U. S. 591 . Cf. Kimberly v. Arms
    Search
  36. Heckers v. Fowler
    Search
  37. under the CEA was explicitly recognized in the Circuit in which Schor and Conti filed suit in District Court. See Hirk v. Agri-Research
    Search
  38. Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96, 103, n. 8 (CA7 1977). See also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  39. to an adjudication by the CFTC of the entire controversy by seeking relief in this alternative forum. Cf. McElrath v. United
    Search
  40. Northern Pipeline, supra, at 458 U. S. 58 . See also United States v. Will
    Search
  41. constitutional courts, National Insurance Co. v. Tidewater
    Search
  42. United States v. Griffin
    Search
  43. may deposit us. Indeed, the CFTC's exercise of this type of jurisdiction is not without precedent. Thus, in RFC v. Bankers
    Search
  44. agency, subject to judicial review, when that claim was ancillary to a federal law dispute. Similarly, in Katchen v. Landy
    Search
  45. in Northern Pipeline. The CEA scheme, in fact, hews closely to the agency model approved by the Court in Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  46. courts, and allocates the decision of those matters to a non-Article III forum of its own creation. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
    Search
  47. S. 583 -584. We do not think Article III compels this degree of prophylaxis. Nor does our decision in Bowsher v. Synar
    Search
  48. under its ancillary jurisdiction, even if an independent jurisdictional basis for it were lacking. See, e.g., Baker v. Gold
    Search
  49. Moore v. New
    Search
  50. Together with No. 85-642, ContiCommodity Services, Inc. v. Schor
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial