Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Yakus Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 1944

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

70 entries 11 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. CurrIn Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1939
  2. Mulford Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1939
  3. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. Vs. Adkins US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  4. Anniston Mfg. Co. Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · May 17, 1937
  5. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1913
  6. Oklahoma Operating Co. Vs. Love US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1920
  7. Lockerty Vs. Phillips US Supreme Court · May 10, 1943
    Distinguished
  8. United States Vs. Lowden US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1939
    Relied / Followed
  9. Bradley Vs. Richmond US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1913
  10. Plymouth Coal Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1914
  11. Bowles Vs. Willingham US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1944
  12. Yakus v. United
    Search
  13. States - 321 U.S. 414 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Yakus v. United
    Search
  14. States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) Yakus v. United
    Search
  15. U. S. 419 reviewed on complaint to the Emergency Court of Appeals and by this Court on certiorari, see Lockerty v. Phillips
    Search
  16. the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. They specifically raised the question reserved in Lockerty v. Phillips
    Search
  17. the occasions for the exercise of the price-fixing power, and the particular prices to be established. Compare Field v. Clark
    Search
  18. Co. v. United
    Search
  19. United States v. Rock
    Search
  20. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator
    Search
  21. National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  22. Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  23. The Act is unlike the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 195, considered in Schechter Corp. v. United
    Search
  24. or the Executive, but to private individuals engaged in the industries to be regulated. Compare Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  25. the formulation of subsidiary administrative policy within the prescribed statutory framework. See Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator
    Search
  26. all prices should be frozen at the levels obtaining during a certain period or on a certain date. See Union Bridge Co. v. United
    Search
  27. hardship, and to choose instead the flexibility attainable by the use of less restrictive standards. Cf. Hampton & Co. v. United
    Search
  28. whether the Administrator, in fixing the designated prices, has conformed to those standards. Compare Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  29. when deemed necessary to protect consumers against unreasonably high prices, sustained in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  30. telegraph lines whenever deemed necessary for the national security or defense, upheld in Dakota Central Tel. Co. v. South
    Search
  31. held valid in Field v. Clark
    Search
  32. greater reach for administrative determination than the power to fix just and reasonable rates, see Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  33. sustained in New York Central Securities Corp. v. United
    Search
  34. States, 287 U. S. 12 , 287 U. S. 24 -25 ( compare United States v. Lowden
    Search
  35. upheld in National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  36. not defined or forbidden by the common law, Federal Trade Commission v. Keppel
    Search
  37. quotas among states and producers, due consideration be given to a variety of economic factors, sustained in Mulford v. Smith
    Search
  38. a variety of economic matters, sustained in Hampton & Co. v. United
    Search
  39. and determine the respective weights attributable to each, held valid in Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator
    Search
  40. In Lockerty v. Phillips
    Search
  41. to its creation are similar to, and certainly no weaker than, those which led this Court, in Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  42. those affected a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence, does not offend against due process. Bradley v. Richmond
    Search
  43. First National Bank v. Weld
    Search
  44. or denying such hearing as the Constitution prescribes. Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  45. Hall Page 321 U. S. 435 v. Geiger-Jones
    Search
  46. Minnesota v. Probate
    Search
  47. for their failure to resort to it or that their constitutional rights have been or will be infringed. Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery
    Search
  48. Nor can we say that the administrative hearing provided by the statute will prove inadequate. We hold in Bowles v. Willingham
    Search
  49. or the procedure, and secure its full judicial review by the Emergency Court of Appeals and this Court. Compare White v. Johnson
    Search
  50. Willcox v. Consolidated
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial