Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

North American Co. Vs. Sec

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 1946

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

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Wickard Vs. Filburn US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1942
  2. Stafford Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · May 01, 1922
  3. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank Vs. Radford US Supreme Court · May 27, 1935
  4. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. Vs. Adkins US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  5. U.S. 686 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court North American Co. v. SEC
    Search
  6. U.S. 686 (1946) North American Co. v. Securities
    Search
  7. holding company device in the nation's electric and gas utility industries. This Court, in Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  8. managements have often included men selected by or historically related to North American. See Detroit Edison Co. v. Securities
    Search
  9. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Securities
    Search
  10. of stock, can on occasion serve as a potent substitute for the more obvious modes of control. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert
    Search
  11. Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery
    Search
  12. command. To conclude otherwise is to ignore the realities of intercorporate relationships. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United
    Search
  13. of their activities. North American is more than a mere investor in its subsidiaries. See Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  14. vital to the functioning of this system. They have more than a casual or incidental relationship. Cf. Ware & Leland v. Mobile
    Search
  15. Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis
    Search
  16. Federal Base Ball Club v. National
    Search
  17. commercial transactions involve the very essence of North American's business. See International Textbook Co. v. Pigg
    Search
  18. from its headquarters in New York City. In short, they are commerce which concerns more states than one. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  19. Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352 , 230 U. S. 398 . As stated by this Court in Associated Press v. Labor
    Search
  20. thus accentuate and add materially to the interstate character of North American. Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  21. United States v. Wrightwood
    Search
  22. Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110 , 315 U. S. 119 . See also Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. Labor
    Search
  23. Congress is not bound by technical legal conceptions. Commerce itself is an intensely practical matter. Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  24. will not become the means of promoting or spreading evil, whether of a physical, moral or economic nature. Brooks v. United
    Search
  25. thus has power to make direct assault upon such economic evils as those relating to labor relations, Labor Board v. Jones
    Search
  26. Polish Nat. Alliance v. Labor
    Search
  27. to wages and hours, United States v. Darby
    Search
  28. to market transactions, Stafford v. Wallace
    Search
  29. Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen
    Search
  30. U. S. 1 , and to monopolistic practices, Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  31. Page 327 U. S. 707 misconception was made more than forty years ago by the appellants in Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  32. was following a pattern set many years ago by decisions applying the Sherman Antitrust Act, Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  33. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  34. Continental Ins. Co. v. United
    Search
  35. United States v. Lehigh
    Search
  36. United States v. Delaware
    Search
  37. Dayton-Goose Creek R. Co. v. United
    Search
  38. foreclose the protection of the various interests which Congress found to be paramount. See Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  39. and the enforcing court, thus enabling the assertion and protection of all shareholders' rights. See Otis & Co. v. Securities
    Search
  40. b)(1). North American's reliance on such cases as Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford
    Search
  41. power to do so, we cannot question the appropriateness or propriety of its decision. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  42. b)(1) and other portions of the Act. See Landis v. North
    Search
  43. Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  44. Commission rejected both claims after hearings and its determinations were sustained upon appeal. Detroit Edison Co. v. Securities
    Search
  45. arise from time to time. That is enough, however, to support legislative action. See Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen
    Search
  46. events. Certainly there is no constitutional requirement that the status quo be maintained. See United States v. Trans-Missouri
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court North American Co. v. SEC
    Search
  48. North American Co. v. Securities
    Search
  49. North American. See Detroit Edison Co. v. Securities
    Search
  50. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial