Citation network
Larson Vs. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1949
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
- Distinguished
-
Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Foreign Commerce Corp. - 337 U.S. 682 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949) Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
But the action itself cannot be enjoined or directed, since it is also the action of the sovereign. United States v. LeeSearch
-
within those powers, only if the powers, or their exercise in the particular case, are constitutionally void. Goldberg v. DanielsSearch
-
sovereign does not, of course, forbid a court from taking jurisdiction over a suit against him. Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. EmergencySearch
-
Fleet Corp., 258 U. S. 549 , 258 U. S. 567 (1922). As was said in Brady Page 337 U. S. 687 v. RooseveltSearch
-
be obtained against the conduct of Government officials. The rule was stated by Mr. Justice Hughes in Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
if based on an incorrect decision as to law or fact, if the officer making the decision was empowered to do so. Adams v. NagleSearch
-
be enjoined or directed, since it is also the action of the sovereign. Page 337 U. S. 696 United States v. LeeSearch
-
A contrary doctrine was stated in Goltra v. WeeksSearch
-
S. 544 . For this conclusion, the Court relied entirely upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Hughes in Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSearch
-
Opposed to the rationale of the Goltra opinion is the decision, by Mr. Justice Holmes in Goldberg v. DanielsSearch
-
Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. v. LittlejohnSearch
-
See Land v. DollarSearch
-
Cf. Sloan Shipyards v. UnitedSearch
-
In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443 (1887). As was said in Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
There are, of course, limitations on the right to recover damages from public officers. See Gibson v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Glass v. IckesSearch
-
and note the differing treatment accorded the claim for compensation and the claim for specific relief in Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
with any personal wrongdoing, nor even with knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing of their subordinates. Cf. Robertson v. SichelSearch
-
but for specific relief, the Administrator, in his official capacity, was, of course, a proper party. Cf. Williams v. FanningSearch
-
the respondent vis-a-vis the United States would clearly have been beyond the court's jurisdiction. See Stanley v. SchwalbySearch
-
would be dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Bell v. HoodSearch
-
require affirmative action by the sovereign or the disposition of unquestionably sovereign property. North Carolina v. TempleSearch
-
This case must therefore be clearly distinguished from cases like Noble v. UnionSearch
-
under general law, but simply the power of the official, under the statute, to make a decision at all. Cf. Ickes v. FoxSearch
-
Perkins v. LukensSearch
-
Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVASearch
-
Mine Safety Co. v. ForrestalSearch
-
Thus, the Court said in Hopkins v. ClemsonSearch
-
Baltimore R. Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
case is remarkably similar to that made, as regards corporate agents, in Chestnut Hill & Spring House Turnpike Co. v. RutterSearch
-
The argument was rejected by the Court. See also Thayer v. BostonSearch
-
will defeat a contention that the action is unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Compare Hurley v. KincaidSearch
-
Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
U. S. 446 , 109 U. S. 451 (1883). The ensuing years have not made the task less difficult. See Brooks v. DewarSearch
-
Thus, in Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
And in Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
Payne v. CentralSearch
-
and Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. FallSearch
-
of the United States and give rise to a cause of action against it for breach of an implied contract. Portsmouth Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
actions, because tortious, are outside of their authority, and hence not actions of the United States. Cf. Hooe v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial