Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sec Vs. Chenery Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 01, 1943

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

31 entries 4 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Southern Pacific Co. Vs. Bogert US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1919
  2. Michoud Vs. Girod US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1846
  3. Helvering Vs. Gowran US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
    Relied / Followed
  4. Pepper Vs. Litton US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1939
  5. SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  6. Corp. - 318 U.S. 80 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  7. Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery
    Search
  8. of trust. We reject a lax view of fiduciary obligations, and insist upon their scrupulous observance. See Wormley v. Wormley
    Search
  9. by analogy the restrictions imposed on trustees in trafficking in property held by them in trust for others, Michoud v. Girod
    Search
  10. namely, Pepper v. Litton
    Search
  11. Magruder v. Drury
    Search
  12. and Meinhard v. Salmon
    Search
  13. principles of law and equity which, in themselves, are sufficient to sustain its order. The only question in Pepper v. Litton
    Search
  14. U.S. at 308 U. S. 296 . Another case relied upon, Woods v. City
    Search
  15. Act, 52 Stat. 840, could deny compensation to protective committees representing conflicting interests. Michoud v. Girod
    Search
  16. How. 503, and Magruder v. Drury
    Search
  17. Act of 1935 was designed to correct. See the concurring opinion of Judge Learned Hand in Morgan, Stanley & Co. v. Securities
    Search
  18. safeguard for the interests protected by the Act. There must be such a responsible finding. Compare United States v. Chicago
    Search
  19. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  20. Ibid. Compare United States v. Carolina
    Search
  21. should have recognized the influence of admonitory language like the following it approvingly quoted from Meinhard v. Salmon
    Search
  22. able to make so substantial a contribution to the development of the administrative law of this field. See e.g. Pepper v. Litton
    Search
  23. Phelps-Dodge Corporation v. Labor
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  25. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery
    Search
  26. See Wormley v. Wormley
    Search
  27. Woods v. City
    Search
  28. and Magruder v. Drury
    Search
  29. Morgan, Stanley & Co. v. Securities
    Search
  30. Compare United States v. Chicago
    Search
  31. Meinhard v. Salmon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial