Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575 (1911). · Go Syfert
Search
Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575 (1911). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases · …we fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern. at p. 580 ✓
80 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (ca11, 2016-10-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1913 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1913 1969 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (4×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
11th Cir. · 2016 · quote attribution · 4 verbatim quotes · confidence high
we fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
11th Cir. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Myers v. Toojay's Management Corp.
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Or to put it in different terms, “we are not licensed to practice statutory remodeling.” United States v. Griffith, 455 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Ali v. Fed’l Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 228 , 128 S.Ct 831, 841 (2008) (“We are not at liberty to rewrite the statute to reflect a meaning we deem more desirable.”); Pavelic & Leflore v. Marvel Entm’t Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 126 , 110 S.Ct. 456, 460 (1989) (“Our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.”); Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 580 , 31 S.Ct. 299, 300 (1911) (denial of rehearing) (Holme…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diamond v. Cuomo
NY · 1987 · confidence medium
As we noted in Maresca , "for the repeal of such provisions, appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic government, not to the courts” (id., at 249, citing Noble State Bank v Haskell, 219 US 575, 580 [Holmes, J.]; United States v Butler, 297 US 1, 79 [Stone, J., dissenting]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maresca v. Cuomo
NY · 1984 · confidence medium
This court is fully cognizant of the arguments that can be made against the wisdom of the challenged provisions; however, for the repeal of such provisions, appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic government, not to the courts (Noble State Bank v Haskell, 219 US 575, 580 [Holmes, J.]; United States v Butler, 297 US 1, 79 [Stone, J., dissenting]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid
N.D. Ohio · 1924 · confidence medium
His later explanation of this language on rehearing ( 219 U. S. 580 , 31 Sup. Ct. 299, 55 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hirsh v. Block
D.D.C. · 1920 · confidence medium
In the Noble Bank Case, supra, the court held, on petition for rehearing ( 219 U. S. 575 , 31 Sup. Ct. 299, 55 L.
discussed Cited "see" Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC
11th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 580 (1911) (on rehearing) (Holmes, J.) (“We fully under- stand . . . the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.”).
discussed Cited "see" Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC
11th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 580 (1911) (on rehearing) (Holmes, J.) (“We fully under- stand . . . the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.”).
examined Cited "see" Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n v. Andrus (3×)
W.D. Va. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 580 , 31 S.Ct. 299 , 55 L.Ed. 341 (1911) (Holmes, J.). 2 Rather, a court is limited to the determination of whether Congress had “. . . a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce . . .” Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 303 , 85 S.Ct. 377, 383 , 13 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Noble State Bank
v.
Haskell
71.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 1911.
219 U.S. 575
1911 U.S. LEXIS 1654
Mr. C. B. Ames for plaintiff in error:
Holmes.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (3)
[*580] Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this cáse. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered, ante, p. 104, seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, etc., were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that ámong the public uses for which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking, might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in the past not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The propositions with regard to it, however; in any form, are rather in the nature of preliminaries. For in this case there is' no out and out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a condition for keeping on, from corporations created by the State. We have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a condition may be imposed.

Leave to file petition denied.