Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Darby Vs. Cisneros

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1993

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

43 entries 4 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. Mccarthy Vs. Madigan US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1991
  2. Bowen Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1988
  3. Shaughnessy Vs. Pedreiro US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1955
  4. Steadman Vs. Sec US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1981
  5. U.S. 137 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Darby Et Al. V. Cisneros
    Search
  6. See this note, supra, at 138. We quote the text as enacted in the Statutes at Large. See Stephan v. United
    Search
  7. Id., at 19a. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Darby v. Kemp
    Search
  8. matter of judicial discretion. 8 The Fourth Circuit's ruling in this case appears to be consistent with Montgomery v. Rumsfeld
    Search
  9. F.2d 250 , 253-254 (CA9 1978), and Missouri v. Bowen
    Search
  10. F.2d 864 (CA8 1987), but is in considerable tension with United States v. Consolidated
    Search
  11. Nuclear Pollution v. United
    Search
  12. and Gulf Oil Corp. v. United
    Search
  13. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton
    Search
  14. U. S. 140 , 144 (1992), quoting Patsy v. Board
    Search
  15. c) in other contexts. For example, in ICC v. Locomotive
    Search
  16. emphasis in original). Id., at 284-285. 146 In Bowen v. Massachusetts
    Search
  17. U. S., at 904, quoting Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro
    Search
  18. In his manual on the APA, prepared in 1947, to which we have given some deference, see, e. g., Steadman v. SEC
    Search
  19. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural
    Search
  20. reconsideration or rehearing, the trend in pre- AP A cases was in the opposite direction. In Vandalia R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  21. Ibid. Seven years later, in Prendergast v. New
    Search
  22. Accord, Banton v. Belt
    Search
  23. Shortly before Congress adopted the AP A, the Court, in Levers v. Anderson
    Search
  24. c) as petitioners would have us interpret it. Brief for Respondents 23. Respondents rely on United States v. Sing
    Search
  25. id., at 170. Accord, Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Risty
    Search
  26. Putting to one side the obvious problems with relying on postenactment legislative history, see, e. g., United States v. Texas
    Search
  27. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV
    Search
  28. Syllabus Darby Et Al. V. Cisneros
    Search
  29. Large. See Stephan v. United
    Search
  30. Darby v. Kemp
    Search
  31. Montgomery v. Rumsfeld
    Search
  32. and Missouri v. Bowen
    Search
  33. United States v. Consolidated
    Search
  34. Nuclear Pollution v. United
    Search
  35. Patsy v. Board
    Search
  36. ICC v. Locomotive
    Search
  37. In Bowen v. Massachusetts
    Search
  38. In Vandalia R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  39. Prendergast v. New
    Search
  40. Levers v. Anderson
    Search
  41. United States v. Sing
    Search
  42. Accord, Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Risty
    Search
  43. United States v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial