green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.4 score
“those who insist that ... a regulation is invalid must make its invalidity so manifest that the court has no choice except to hold that the secretary has exceeded his authority and employed means that are not at all appropriate to the end specified in the act of congress.”
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gregorio Perez-Gonzalez v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
(2×)
those who insist that ... a regulation is invalid must make its invalidity so manifest that the court has no choice except to hold that the secretary has exceeded his authority and employed means that are not at all appropriate to the end specified in the act of congress.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Orange Environment, Inc. v. County of Orange
Indeed, the Court’s decision, like the underlying case it found controlling, Boske v. Commissioner, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 , was a “very narrow ruling.” Id. at 472 , 20 S.Ct. at 421 (Frankfurter, J. concurring).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Norris
See Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 467 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900); McClung v. Silliman, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 598, 603-05 , 5 L.Ed. 340 (1821).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Burns
See Ramirez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 550 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir.1977) (regulation should not be annulled unless palpably inconsistent with law) (quoting from Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 , 20 S.Ct. 701, 705 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900)).
cited
Cited "see"
Sam Andrews' Sons, Etc. v. John N. Mitchell
See Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Zuckert
See, for example, Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 , and United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 4 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Recalcitrant Witness Richard Boeh, Julia Gomez v. Daryl Gates, and United States of America
(2×)
See also Ex Parte Sackett, 74 F.2d at 923-24 (applying Boske and upholding Department of Justice regulation prohibiting investigating officer from testifying, despite assumed materiality of the records subpoenaed). 6 Touhy and the case upon which it relied, Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900), both dealt with subpoenas duces tecum, while this case involves a subpoena ad testificandum.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Louisiana v. Thomas Sparks, Jr., A/K/A Abdullah Hakim El Mumit v. Gordon Gsell, U.S. Probation Officer
See Touhy, 340 U.S. at 470 , 71 S.Ct. at 420 (referring to regulatory precursor of .§ 16.21 et seq.); see also Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900) (approving of analogous Treasury Department regulations).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning v. Johnson
See also, Baske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 , 20 S.Ct. 701, 706 , 44 L.Ed. 846, 850-51 (1900).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Swett v. Schenk
See also Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900) (disclosure permitted only at the direction of the department head); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
No. 85-5592
See also Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (1900) (disclosure permitted only at the direction of the department head); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Franchia
Compare Boske v Comingore, 177 US 459 , 44 L ed 846, 20 S Ct 701 (1900); United States v Ragen, 340 US 462 , 95 L ed 417, 71 S Ct 416 (1951). 1 Next, the accused contends that in any event a rehearing is proper because the law officer did not, as he was requested' to do by defense counsel, personally examine the withheld documents.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Ex Rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy
See, e.g., Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 ; Mastrapasqua v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 999,1001 . . 8 C.F.R. (1949 ed.) §§ 90.3, 90.12; cf. 8 C.F.R.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McGlothan v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
See also, Boske v. Comingore, 1900, 177 U.S. 459 , 20 S.Ct. 701 , 44 L.Ed. 846 (distillery reports to collector of internal revenue); Harris v. Walsh, 1922, 51 App.D.C. 167 , 277 F. 569 , and Federal Life Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Crawford, Appt.
v.
William L. Hubbell, as Treasurer of the Adams Express Company
v.
William L. Hubbell, as Treasurer of the Adams Express Company
248.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 16, 1900.
Mr. Frederick R. Kellogg and Mr. Allan L. McDermott for appellant. Mr. James B. Dill was on their brief., Mr. Charles Steele and Mr. Charles B. Alexander for appellee. Mr. William D. Guthrie and Mr. Theodore S, Beecher were on their brief.
White.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
[*420] Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The certificate and the questions which arise from it are as follows:
“This cause came before this court on February 2, 1899, upon an appeal taken by the complainant to review a decree of the Circuit Court, Southern District of New-York, sitting in equity. Such decree dismissed the bill. As to a question of law arising upon said appeal this court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court for its proper decision.
“ Statement of Facts.
“ This suit is for an injunction to restrain the express company from refusing to accept express packages from complainant for transportation, except upon the condition .that complainant either pay for or provide the war revenue stamp required to be affixed to each receipt in addition to its usual and ordinary charges for transportation as the same existed on and for a long time prior to July 1, 1898. The defendant company since July 1, 1898, has fixed rates of compensation which it offers to accept for services rendered by it, whereby, in addition to the amount of its charges as the same existed on and for a long time prior to July 1, 1898, it requires the shipper either to' provide or pay for the cost of the stamp on the bill of lading or receipt required to be issued by the act of Congress of June 13, 1898, known as the ‘War Revenue Act.’ It has made known these charges to shippers, and particularly to complainant, and refuses to accept packages for transportation except upon payment thereof. The pleadings are annexed to this certificate.
“ Questions certified.
“ Upon the facts set forth, the questions of law concerning which this court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court for its proper decision are:
“(1) Does the War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, impose upon the carrier exclusively the tax represented by the stamp to be affixed to each bill of lading, manifest, or other evidence of receipt required to be issued to each shipper of goods ac[*421] cepted by the carrier for transportation, or does it impose the tax merely upon the transaction of shipment, leaving it to be paid indifferently by either party thereto ?
“ (2) If the War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, does impose such tax exclusively upon the carrier, does it preclude the carrier, who is by such act required to issue to each shipper a bill of lading, manifest, or other evidence of receipt, from relieving itself of the expense of affixing and cancelling the stamp required to be attached to such bill of lading, manifest, or other evidence of receipt ?
“ In accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, establishing Courts of Appeal, etc., the foregoing questions of law are by the Circuit Court of Appeals hereby certified to the Supreme Court.”
The subject to which the certificate relates and the matter embraced in the questions submitted has been considered, and was passed on in an opinion this day announced in the case of the American Express Company v. Fred. A. Maynard, Attorney General of the State of Michigan ex rel. George F. Moore et al., No. 220 of the docket of this term.
For the reasons given in the opinion in the case just referred to it is unnecessary to answer the first question submitted, and a negative answer to the second question is required.
And it is so ordered.