ROGERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,
v.
CALUMET NATIONAL BANK OF HAMMOND, SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE, ET AL.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We are of the view that under Silesian-American Corp. v. Markham, 156 F. 2d 793, 796, affirmed, 332 U. S. 469, a state court is without power to review the discretion exercised by the Attorney General of the United States under federal law. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to the Appellate Court of Indiana. On remand the Indiana courts are of course free to consider other questions presented by this record in light of General License 94, 12 Fed. Reg. 1457, as it may have affected the definition of “national” in Executive Order 9095, 7 Fed. Reg. 1971, as amended, and Executive Order 8389, 5 Fed. Reg. 1400. See GMO. Niehaus & Co. v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 605, 153 F. Supp. 428.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Off. OF Commc'n OF the United Church OF Christ v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 359 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1966)…o consider that the same standards are applicable to determining standing before the Commission and standing to appeal a Commission order to this court. See Philco Corp. v. FCC, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 257 F. 2d 656 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 946, 79 S.Ct. 350, 3 L.Ed.2d 352 (1959); Metropolitan Television Co. v. FCC, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 221 F. 2d 879 (1955). We have, therefore, used the cases dealing with standing in the two tribunals interchangeably. . See Northern Pacific Radio Corp., 23 P & F Rad.Re…1 / 3
-
Ill. Citizens Comm. FOR Broad. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States, 515 F.2d 397 (D.C. Cir. 1975)…banc). These liberal principles of standing before administrative agencies were applied in FCC cases involving allegations of economic injury. See Philco Corp. v. FCC, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 257 F. 2d 656, 658-59 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 946, 79 S.Ct. 350, 3 L.Ed.2d 352 (1959); Granik v. FCC, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 234 F. 2d 682 (1956); Metropolitan Television Co. v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 221 F. 2d 879 (1955). See generally Albert, Standing to Challenge Administrative Action: An Inadequ…
-
Lynchburg GAS Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 336 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1964)…nications Comm’n v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 60 S.Ct. 693, 84 L.Ed. 869 (1940). And see the cases reviewed in Philco Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 257 F. 2d. 656 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 946, 79 S.Ct. 350, 3 L.Ed.2d 352 (1959). But the-Commission points out that the PR rate,, even if it might theoretically have an economic impact upon Lynchburg in the future, has none at present. AcceptingLynchburg’s statement that the base period which would be us…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Silesian-American Corp. v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1947)
- Silesian-American Corp. v. Markham, 156 F.2d 793 (2d Cir. 1946)