Citation network
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. Vs. Adkins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1940
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. 381 (1940) U.S. Supreme Court Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. AdkinsSearch
-
U.S. 381 (1940) Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. AdkinsSearch
-
of the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 991) were held unconstitutional by this Court in Carter v. CarterSearch
-
s decision was based on substantial evidence. It accordingly affirmed the order. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. NationalSearch
-
action was taken in this case until after the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. NationalSearch
-
will preserve the vitality of the Act and the utility of the language in question. See Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-EnamelSearch
-
power which is granted it. Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 , 112 U. S. 596 . And see Sonzinsky v. UnitedSearch
-
under the commerce clause. As stated by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Page 310 U. S. 394 his dissent in Carter v. CarterSearch
-
See Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. UnitedSearch
-
of prices is true of the attachment of other conditions to the flow of a commodity in interstate channels. Mulford v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 38 , and cases cited. Since this power, when it exists, is complete in itself, Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the provisions of this Act are an exertion of the paramount federal power over interstate commerce. See United States v. RockSearch
-
Nor does the Act violate the Fifth Amendment. Price control is one of the means available to the states ( Nebbia v. NewSearch
-
York, 291 U. S. 502 ) and to the Congress ( United States v. RockSearch
-
Royal Cooperative, Inc., supra ) in their respective domains ( Baldwin v. G.ASearch
-
the Constitution. There are limits on the powers of the states to act as respects these interstate industries. Baldwin v. G.ASearch
-
to stabilize the markets through price-fixing agreements, it would have run afoul of the Sherman Act. United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
the public interest by placing price control in the hands of its administrative representative. United States v. RockSearch
-
to guide the administrative body in the ratemaking process. The validity of that standard ( Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. UnitedSearch
-
in various contexts ( New York Central Securities Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ChemicalSearch
-
Avent v. UnitedSearch
-
to navigation ( Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
long been recognized as necessary in order that the exertion of legislative power does not become a futility. Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
with which Congress has supplied the Commission are Page 310 U. S. 399 plainly valid. United States v. RockSearch
-
authorities. Since lawmaking is not entrusted to the industry, this statutory scheme is unquestionably valid. Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
electric railway in the Railway Labor Act ( Shields v. UtahSearch
-
of the reasons for supplying Page 310 U. S. 400 merely a statutory guide. Cf. Piedmont & Northern Ry. Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
that agency the determination of the question of fact whether a particular coal producer fell within the Act. Shields v. UtahSearch
-
cease when it is ascertained that the findings of the Commission meet the statutory test. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
of discrimination. But the Fifth Amendment, unlike the Fourteenth, has no equal protection clause. Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
Sonzinsky v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, p. 300 U. S. 513 -514. And see Mulford v. SmithSearch
-
p. 307 U. S. 48 . III. Appellant contends here, as it did below, that Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. NationalSearch
-
In the second place, the underlying issue in each of these two suits is the same. In Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. NationalSearch
-
fact that the parties are not precisely identical is not necessarily fatal. As stated in Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. SchendelSearch
-
judicata in a second action upon the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them. Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
res judicata in relitigation of the same issue between that party and another officer of the government. See Tait v. WesternSearch
-
United States had authority to represent its interests in a final adjudication of the issue in controversy. Cf. Gunter v. AtlanticSearch
-
for unlawful exaction is not a bar to a subsequent suit by or against the Commissioner or the United States ( Sage v. UnitedSearch
-
Sage v. UnitedSearch
-
States, as well as the appellant. Where a suit binds the United States, it binds its subordinate officials. Tait v. WesternSearch
-
does not apply unless the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the cause is sufficiently answered by Stoll v. GottliebSearch
-
U. S. 165 , and Treinies v. SunshineSearch
-
a procedure which meets all requirements of due process, that remedy is exclusive. See Anniston Manufacturing Co. v. DavisSearch
-
of the litigation would be to put a premium on dilatory tactics in a situation where, under the authority of Currin v. WallaceSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial