BOSTICK

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (37 total)

• United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …one claiming to be relieved from the statute’s operation must establish that he comes within the exception.” E. Crawford, The Construction of Statutes § 299, at 610 (1940); accord, e.g., United States v. First City National Bank, 386 U.S. 361, 366, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967); Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Rheem, 295 F. 2d 473, 475 (9th Cir. 1961); Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 73 F. 2d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1934); Advisory Committee’s Notes, Note to Paragraph (6) of Rule 803, 56 F.R.D. at 3…
• Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …ses. Second, we note that the courts have generally treated statutory exemptions from remedial statutes as affirmative defenses. See, e.g., County of Washington v. Gunther, supra; United States v. First City National Bank of Houston, 386 U.S. 361, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967) (statutory exemption from the antitrust laws found in 12 U.S.C. § 1828(c)(5)(B) of the Bank Merger Act is an affirmative defense); Chilivis v. S.E.C., supra at 1208 (statutory exemptions from the FOIA are affirmative defenses)…
• Ssih Equip. S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n & Stewart-Warner Corp., 718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
  …weight it as a trial court. The court is not, however, required to ignore the decision below. See Nulf v. International Paper Co., 656 F. 2d 553, 563 (10th Cir.1981), and cases cited. United States v. First City National Bank, 386 U.S. 361, 368-69, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 1093-94, 18 L.Ed.2d 151 (S.D. Tex.1966) provides the following guidance: [T]he 1966 Act provides that the court in an antitrust action “shall review de novo the issues presented.” (Emphasis added.) 12 U.S.C. § 1828(c)(7)(A). It is argued that the…

Authorities Cited

• Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1967)