SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
v.
ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET AL.; AND ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET AL. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET AL.; AND ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET AL. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
332 U.S. 788
Supreme Court of the United States (1947)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 28 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the petition for review as moot, on joint motion of counsel for the parties.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)…S. 526; S. E. C. v. Long Island Lighting Co., 325 U. S. 833; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United States, 326 U. S. 690; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 332 U. S. 748; S. E. C. v. Engineers Public Service Co., 332 U. S. 788; Hodge v. Tulsa County Election Board, 335 U. S. 889; S. E. C. v. Philadelphia Co., 337 U. S. 901. So far as federal civil cases are concerned, there are but few exceptions to this practice in recent years. See Cantos v. Styer, 329 U. S. 686; Uyek…
-
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1974)…t beyond the jurisdiction of administrative agencies. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, 539 (1958); Engineers Public Service Co. v. SEC, 78 U. S. App. D. C. 199, 215-216, 138 F. 2d 936, 952-953 (1943), dismissed as moot, 332 U. S. 788.” Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233, 242 (1968) (Harlan, J., concurring in result); see Jaffe, Judicial Review: Question of Law, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 239, 271-275 (1955). Nor does the legislative history accompanying the 1970 amendm…
-
Oestereich v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. NO. 11, 393 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1968)…t beyond the jurisdiction of administrative agencies. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, 539 (1958); Engineers Public Service Co. v. SEC, 78 U. S. App. D. C. 199, 215-216, 138 F. 2d 936, 952-953 (1943), dismissed as moot, 332 U. S. 788. The Boards have no power to promulgate regulations, and are not expressly delegated any authority to pass on the validity of regulations or statutes. Such authority cannot readily be inferred, for the composition of the Boards, and their administra…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence