Citation network
Edmond Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1997
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
-
Edmond v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 520 U.S. 651 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Edmond V. UnitedSearch
-
the General Counsel's earlier judicial assignments as appointments of his own. In Ryder v. UnitedSearch
-
Lazenby v. UnitedSearch
-
Leaver v. UnitedSearch
-
Leonard v. UnitedSearch
-
Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
and Venable v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
emphasis added). The fact that this Court found the distinction to be significant in Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
permitted to do so by other Executive officers, and hence they are inferior within the meaning of Article II. Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
U. S. 654 , 671-672, and Freytag v. CommissionerSearch
-
Subsequent events, however, called into question the validity of these assignments. In Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
department head, reappoint the judges so the court would be constitutionally valid beyond any doubt. See United States v. SeniorSearch
-
including Chief Judge Baum and Judge Bridgman. Addendum to Brief for Petitioners A6. Two Terms ago, in Ryder v. UnitedSearch
-
of Military Review had not been appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause, see Brief for United States in Ryder v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the convictions, relying on its holding on remand in United States v. RyderSearch
-
prove persuasive. Ordinarily, where a specific provision conflicts with a general one, the specific governs. Busic v. UnitedSearch
-
unconstitutional-which we must of course avoid doing if there is another reasonable interpretation available. NLRB v. CatholicSearch
-
cl. 2. As we recognized in Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
ed.). As one of our early opinions suggests, its obvious purpose is administrative convenience, see United States v. GermaineSearch
-
U. S. 371 , 397-398 (1880), a vice consul charged temporarily with the duties of the consul, United States v. EatonSearch
-
in district court proceedings, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 282 U. S. 344 , 352354 (1931). Most recently, in Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
within the meaning of the Appointments Clause. See, e. g., Freytag v. CommissionerSearch
-
assignment without cause. The power to remove officers, we have recognized, is a powerful tool for control. Bowsher v. SynarSearch
-
Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WilsonSearch
-
the United States unless permitted to do so by other Executive officers. Finally, petitioners argue that Freytag v. CommissionerSearch
-
is limited to their judgments. See In re Sealed Case, 838 F.2d 476 , 483 (CADC), rev'd sub nom. Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
officer is necessary for inferior officer status, but not sufficient to establish it. See, e. g., Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
scheme weigh more heavily than those to the contrary. Having tried to do this in a concurring opinion in Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Edmond V. UnitedSearch
-
In Ryder v. UnitedSearch
-
Lazenby v. UnitedSearch
-
Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
of Article II. Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
and Freytag v. CommissionerSearch
-
In Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. SeniorSearch
-
Ryder v. UnitedSearch
-
Busic v. UnitedSearch
-
NLRB v. CatholicSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial