green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 11×
17.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 ·
…legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule, to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1908 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1908
1967
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee
legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule, to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee
legislation on the other hand looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule, to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
we shall assume that when ... a state constitution sees fit to unite legislative and judicial powers in a single hand, there is nothing to hinder, so far as the constitution of the united states is concerned.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Koeller
the establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lawrence v. Carlin
a judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania
we shall assume that when, as here, a state constitution sees fit to unite legislative and judicial powers in a single hand, there is nothing to hinder so far as the united states constitution is concerned.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit
legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit
legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kamplain v. Curry County Board Of Commissioners
legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule, to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kamplain v. Curry County Board of Commissioners
legislation ... looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule, to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Home Insurance v. State Corp. Commission
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
we shall assume that for some purposes is a court ... in the commonly accepted sense of that word.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marion E. Pitch v. United States
Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 226, 29 S. Ct. 67, 69 (1908)). 3 We did so largely because we believed the committee’s proceeding was so “closely akin” to the judicial-proceeding exception.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
So, when the final act is legislative, the decision which induces it cannot be judicial in the practical sense, although the questions considered might be the same that would arise in the trial of a case.” 211 U.S. at 226-27 , 29 S.Ct. at 69-70 (Citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Springfield, Vermont v. McCarren
“A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist.” Prentis, supra, 211 U.S. at 226, 29 S.Ct. at 69 (emphasis added). 7 “The nature of the final act determines the nature of the previous inquiry.” Id. at 227, 29 S.Ct. at 69.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Marc Feldman v. William C. Gardner Edward J. Hickey, Jr. v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(28×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 226, 29 S.Ct. at 69, 53 L.Ed. at 158. .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Illinois Cent. R. v. Mississippi R. Commission
It is the nature- *819 of the final act’ that determines 'the nature of the previous inquiry.’ Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210 , 227 [ 29 S. Ct. 67, 70 ( 53 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanton v. State Tax Commission
Quoting from the latter case he states: “ ‘In so far as the distribution has not been made in the Constitution, the power to make it is vested in the General Assembly, as the depository of the legislative power of the state.’ ” The necessity for maintaining the division of the powers of government into its separate branches was discussed in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S., 210 , 225, 29 S. Ct., 67, 69 ( 53 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
South McAlester-Eufaula Telephone Co. v. State Ex Rel. Baker-Reidt Mercantile Co.
Co. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 211 U. S. 265 , 29 Sup. Ct. 50, 53 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State, Department of Game, Fish & Parks v. Troy Township
See Prentis, 211 U.S. at 226 , 29 S.Ct. at 69 ; Conditional Use Permit No. 13-08, 2014 S.D. 75 , ¶ 19, 855 N.W.2d at 842 ; Champion, 5 Dakota at 430 , 41 N.W. at 742 .
cited
Cited "see"
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Bacon v. Rutland Railroad Co., 232 U.S. 134 , 34 S.Ct. 283 , 58 L.Ed. 538 (1914).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutin v. Washington Township Board of Education
See New Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery of Bible Presbyterian Church v. New Jersey State Bd. of Higher Education, 654 F.2d 868, 877 (3d Cir.1981) (“the Supreme Court has held that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1738 nor federal common law principles of res judicata require deference to administrative as distinct from judicial proceedings.”) (citing Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 226-28, 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908)).
discussed
Cited "see"
MRO Software, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 , 14 S.Ct. 1047 , 38 L.Ed. 1014 (1894).”), review denied, 598 So.2d 75 (Fla.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re John H. McBryde U.S. District Judge
(2×)
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 224 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 68 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908) (defining a “judicial inquiry”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Patch
(2×)
See Prentis, 211 U.S. at 224-26 , 29 S.Ct. at 68-69 ; see also New Orleans Pub.
discussed
Cited "see"
Redwood Village Partnership, an Illinois Partnership v. John Graham Blaine Nordwall Robert Wanner Barb Howe Don Johnson Charles Ehrhardt, in Their Individual Capacity Redwood Village Partnership, an Illinois Partnership v. John Graham Blaine Nordwall Robert Wanner Barb Howe Don Johnson Charles Ehrhardt, in Their Individual Capacity
See Prentis, 211 U.S. at 226 , 29 S.Ct. at 69 ("The establishment of a rate [by the Virginia State Corporation Commission] is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative" in nature.) We agree instead with the reasoning of the District of Columbia Circuit in Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States, 721 F.2d 385 (D.C.Cir.1983), which considered a damages claim against five former members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
discussed
Cited "see"
Redwood Village Partnership v. Graham
See Prentis, 211 U.S. at 226 , 29 S.Ct. at 69 (“The establishment of a rate [by the Virginia State Corporation Commission] is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative” in nature.) We agree instead with the reasoning of the District of Columbia Circuit in Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States, 721 F.2d 385 (D.C.Cir.1983), which considered a damages claim against five former members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
cited
Cited "see"
Fisher Scientific Co. v. City of New York
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 227-30 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 70-71 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blake v. Papadakos
See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 479 , 103 S.Ct. at 1313 . 30 The Supreme Court explained that administrative/non-adjudicative acts, in contrast, generally require not the application of existing laws to particular facts but rather "look[ing] into the future and chang[ing] existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power." Id., at 477 , 103 S.Ct. at 1312 , quoting Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jennings v. Dade County
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 , 14 S.Ct. 1047 , 38 L.Ed. 1014 (1894). [2] A variance is a modification of the zoning ordinance which may be granted when such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and when, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. 7 FlaJur2d, Building, Zoning, and Land Controls, § 140 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Jennings v. Dade County
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Reagan v. Farmers’Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 , 14 S.Ct. 1047 , 38 L.Ed. 1014 (1894). .
discussed
Cited "see"
James M. Scott, Jr. v. Robert C. Flowers
(2×)
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908) (assuming, arguendo, that State Corporation Commission could be a court if its action had been judicial in nature, in which event it "would be protected from interference on the part of courts of the United States"); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 2519-20 , 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989) (discussing Prentis and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)).
cited
Cited "see"
Ditch v. Bd. of County Com'rs of County of Shawnee
See id. at 61, 562 P.2d at 106 (quoting Prentise v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908)).
cited
Cited "see"
Big Apple Cookie Co. v. Springwater Cookie Co.
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boykins v. Ambridge Area School District
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210 , 226-27, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908) (distinguishing between legislative and adjudicative functions; legislative-type proceedings of state administrative agency not entitled to res judicata effect); cf. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 , 524 n.2, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1948 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (Burger, C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Boykins v. Ambridge Area School District
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210 , 226-27, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 63 L.Ed. 150 (1908) (distinguishing between legislative and adjudicative functions; legislative-type proceedings of state administrative agency not entitled to res judicata effect); cf. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 , 524 n.2, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1948 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (Burger, C.
cited
Cited "see"
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. AIR POLLUTION
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coastline Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Sutley
(2×)
See, Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company. Federal Trade Commission v. The Superior Oil Company, Inc., a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Exxon Corporation, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Shell Oil Company, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company of California, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation
See note 48 supra 1 Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U.S. 420, 445 , 50 S.Ct. 220 , 74 L.Ed. 524 (1930); State Corporation Commission v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561, 569 , 54 S.Ct. 321 , 78 L.Ed. 500 (1934); St.
cited
Cited "see"
National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Federal Trade Commission
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226-227 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 15 (1908), another case noted in Covington's discussion. 51 Cong.Rec.
cited
Cited "see"
National Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226-227 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 15 (1908), another case noted in Covington’s discussion. 51 Cong.Ree.
cited
Cited "see"
COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2386 v. County of Wabasha
See, Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S. Ct. 67 , 53 L. ed. 150.
cited
Cited "see"
Illinois Central Railroad v. Mississippi Public Service Commission
Co., 273 U.S. 625, 628 , 47 S.Ct. 489, 490 , 71 L.Ed. 807 ; See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 228 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 70 , 53 L.Ed. 150 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gates v. Council of City of Huntington
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 , where Justice Holmes said: “A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitchell v. Wright
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 ; Porter v. Investors Syndicate, 286 U.S. 461 , 52 S.Ct. 617 , 76 L.Ed. 1226 , affirmed on rehearing, 287 U.S. 346 , 53 S.Ct. 132 , 77 L.Ed. 354 ; Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Slattery, 302 U. S. 300 , 58 S.Ct. 199 , 82 L.Ed. 276 .
cited
Cited "see"
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Buckingham Trans. Co.
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Company, 211 U. S. 210 , 29 S. Ct. 67 , 53 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 ; Louisville & Nashville R.
cited
Cited "see"
General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Williams
See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 239 , 29 S. Ct. 67 , 53 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Maryland Classified Employees Ass'n v. Anderson
Compare, e.g., Home Telephone Co. v. Los Angeles, 211 U. S. 265, 272-273 , 29 S. Ct. 50, 51-52 , 53 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frank Irey, Jr., Inc., a Corporation v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
(2×)
See e.g., Justice Holmes' description of rate-making in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Salvati v. Dale
See, e. g., Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 , 29 S.Ct. 67 , 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Illinois Commerce Comm’n v. Thomson, 318 U.S. 675 , 63 S.Ct. 834 , 87 L.Ed. 1075 (1943).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GARFIELD, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
v.
UNITED STATES Ex Rel. ALLISON
v.
UNITED STATES Ex Rel. ALLISON
249, 250.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1908.
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fowler, with whom Mr. William B. Harr was on the brief, for plaintiff in error., Mr. Charles H. Merillat, with whom Mr. Charles J. Happier and Mr. James K. Jones were on the brief, for defendant in error.
Day.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases were argued and submitted with the Goldsby Case, No. 248, just decided. In the case of George A. Allison, a patent had been issued for his lands and duly recorded. In the case of Ida Allison, an allotment certificate had been issued.
The relators are Cherokees, but the legislation herein involved is not different from that governing allotments to members of the Chickasaw Nation.
The Allisons made application to the commission for admission to citizenship under-the act of June 10, 1896. Their applications were denied and no appeal taken. Afterwards a decision by the commission, granting the application of the Allisons for enrollment as citizens by blood, was affirmed by the Department of the Interior as of April 16, 1904. Their names were summarily stricken from the rolls by the department’s order of March 4, 1907. The cases are controlled by the decision in Goldsby’s Case.
Judgments affirmed.