CITY OF ATLANTA

v.

ICKES, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Citator

Cited By

• Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGRATH, 341 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1951)
  …United States, 281 U. S. 249, 255, 257. When those consequentially affected may resort to an administrative agency charged with their protection, courts are especially reluctant to give them “standing” to claim judicial review. See Atlanta v. Ickes, 308 U. S. 517; cf. Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F. 2d 694.2 [*154] But it is not always true that only the person immediately affected can challenge the action. The fact that an advantageous relationship is terminable at will does not prevent a litigant fr…
• Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1942)
  …en consistently denied. See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447; Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U. S. 249; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464; Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 306 U. S. 118; Atlanta v. Ickes, 308 U. S. 517; Singer & Sons v. Union Pacific R. Co., 311 U. S. 295. The attempt to obtain a stay is but another manifestation, albeit oblique, of that same endeavor. Hence, instead of starting from the premise that an “historic power” to issue a stay in this t…
• Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1944)
  …d we are advised by the Government of what is not denied by petitioners, that such arrangements are by no means unusual. This Court has held that a consumer has no standing to challenge a minimum price order like the one before us. Atlanta v. Ickes, 308 U. S. 517; cf. Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U. S. 249. Surely a producer who may bargain for prices above the minimum is in no better legal position than a consumer who urges that too high a minimum has [*320] been improperly fixed. The Commonwealth of…

Authorities Cited

• Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937)
• Ala. Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1938)
• Tenn. Elec. Power Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 306 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1939)
• Alexander Sprunt & Son, Inc. v. United States, 281 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1930)