William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 (1939). · Go Syfert
Search
William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 (1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
272 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 38 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Proposed Legislation to Restrict the Sales of Alcoholic Beverages in Interstate Commerce (olc, 1984-04-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1939 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1939 1982 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Proposed Legislation to Restrict the Sales of Alcoholic Beverages in Interstate Commerce
OLC · 1984 · confidence medium
United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., 324 U.S. 293,299 (1945); Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 172-73 (1939).6 We believe that H.R. 3870 is constitutional for three reasons.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle (2×)
SCOTUS · 1979 · confidence medium
The three-judge court was thus improperly convened, William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U. S. 171, 173-174 (1939), and this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the judgment in such case.
examined Cited "see" Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson (4×)
Vet. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
I also note that VA is not Congress and that the regulation cited to by the Federal Circuit, 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a) and (b), cannot support the proposition for which they are cited, namely that "Congress has provided express statutory authority to permit the Board to obtain additional evidence, such as expert medical opinions in specific cases." DAV v. Sec'y, 327 F.3d at 1347 ; see William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173-174 (1939) (noting that an administrative regulation does not equate to an Act of Congress).
examined Cited "see" Chambers v. Klein (3×)
D.N.J. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173-74 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 (1939); Sardino v. Federal Reserve Bank, 361 F.2d 106, 114-16 (2d Cir. 1966).
examined Cited "see" Shifrin v. Wilson (3×)
D.D.C. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
U. D., 519 F.2d 1160, 1163-64 (5th Cir. 1975); see generally William Jameson & Co. v. Morganthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173-74 , 59 S.Ct. 804, 805 , 83 L.Ed. 1189, 1192 (1939).
examined Cited "see" Maher v. Mathews (3×)
D. Del. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 (1939). 20 CFR § 416.1420 is not “plainly directed or permitted” by any Act of Congress because neither 42 U.S.C. § 1382c (a) (3) (E), providing that an individual is to be considered disabled and currently eligible for SSI benefits “if he is permanently and totally disabled as defined under a State plan . . . as in effect for October 1972 and [if he] received aid under such plan (on the basis of disability) for December 1973 (and for at least one month prior to July 1973). *1173 . . . ,” nor 88…
examined Cited "see" Woodward v. Rogers (3×)
D.D.C. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173-174 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 (1939). 6 .
discussed Cited "see" Taussig v. McNamara (2×)
D.D.C. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 , 09 S.Ct 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 (1930). 3 .
cited Cited "see" Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, Inc.
SCOTUS · 1945 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U. S. 171, 173 .
examined Cited "see" Stone v. Christensen (3×)
D. Or. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See Generally Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , 38 S.Ct. 159 , 62 L.Ed. 349 , L.R.A.1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856. 14 Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 172 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 ; California Water Service Co. v. Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 254, 255 , 58 S.Ct. 865 , 82 L.Ed. 1323 . 15 See Joint Note prepared by the Editors of Columbia Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and Harvard Law Review, Yol.
examined Cited "see" Hayes v. United States (3×)
10th Cir. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171, 173 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Clayton Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n (4×)
6th Cir. · 2018 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391, 394 (1939) (upholding Michigan statute prohibiting the sale of out-of-state beer against Commerce Clause challenge), with William Jameson Co., Inc. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 , 172–73 (1939) (per curiam) (upholding Federal Alcohol Administration Act’s labeling requirements against Twenty-first Amendment challenge).
examined Cited "see, e.g." O'NEILL v. Dent (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 (1939); Sardino v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 361 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zemel v. Rusk (2×)
SCOTUS · 1965 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U. S. 171 ; Schneider v. Rusk, 372 U. S. 224 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Siminoff v. Murff (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1958 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 1939, 307 U.S. 171 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 ; Parker v. Lester, D.C.N.D.Cal.1951, 98 F.Supp. 300, 307 , appeal dismissed 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 1020 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Ackert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (3×)
4th Cir. · 1940 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Jameson & Co. v. Morganthau, 307 U.S. 171 , 59 S.Ct. 804 , 83 L.Ed. 1189 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Jameson & Co.
v.
Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury
717.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 15, 1939.
307 U.S. 171
Mr. William D. Mitchell, with -whom Messrs. John F. Moore and William E. Stevenson were on the brief, for appellant., Solicitor General Jackson and Mr. Philip E. Buck, with whom Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Charles A. Horsky and John Paulding Brown were on the brief, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 96 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Appellant, an importer and distributor of alcoholic beverages, having been denied the right to import its product into the United States under the label of “blended Scotch whisky,” upon the ground'that it was improperly labeled, brought this suit against the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials to enjoin them from refusing to release the product from customs custody upon payment of the required customs duties. Appellant also asked for a declaratory judgment that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 49 Stat. 977, 1965, is unconstitutional and void and that Regulations No. 5 promulgated thereunder, and particularly §§' 21 (k), 34 (f) and 46 (a) of these Regulations, are unenforceable as against appellant and are without warrant of statutory authority.

In the view that the question of the validity of an Act of Congress was involved and that the suit was within the purview of § 3 of the Act of-Congress of August 24,. 1937, 50 Stat. 751, the case was heard below by a court of three judges, which denied an application for preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint. 25 F. Supp. 771. From its decree a direct appeal has been taken to this Court.

Section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 24, 1937, providing for a court of three judges and a direct appeal to this’ Court, is not applicable unless the questions raised as to the constitutional validity of an Act of Congress are substantial. California Water Service Co. v. Redding, 304 U. S. 252, 254, 255.

Here, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was attacked upon the ground that the Twenty-first Amend[*173] ment to the Federal Constitution gives to the States complete and exclusive control over commerce-in intoxicating liquors, unlimited by the commerce clause, and hence that Congress has no longer authority to control the importation of these commodities into the United States. We see no substance in this contention.

The other contentions of appellant assailed the Regulations and administrative action thereunder rather than the Act of Congress. So far as the Federal Alcohol Administration Act itself is concerned, no substantial .question of constitutional validity was raised.

Section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 24, 1937, while providing for a procedure analogous to that under § 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. 380, creates a distinction which we think is controlling. Section 266 of the Judicial Code provides for a court of three judges where an injunction is sought to restrain the enforcement “of any statute of a State” or “of an order made by an administrative board' or commission acting under and pursuant' to the statutes of such State,” upon the ground of unconstitutionality. The provision in relation to administrative orders was added by an amendment to the original section.. Act of March 4, 1913, 37 Stat. 1013. While.that addition has been said to be unnecessary, as such orders were previously covered, Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 292, Congress adopted the amendment out of abundant caution, But with thes! .provisions of § 266 before it, Congress in enacting § 3 of the Act of August 24, 1937, did not refer to “any statute” or to administrative orders, but confined its requirement to cases of attack upon an “Act of Congress” upon the ground that “such Act or any part thereof is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” This is not an apt description of administrative regulations or orders. We must regard the choice of language - as deliberate and as indicating a limitation deemed to be advisable. It does not. appear to have 'been the intention of Congress that[*174] direct appeal should lie to this Court when administrative action and not the Act of Congress is assailed.

While we are of the opinion that the Court is without jurisdiction to review the merits on this appeal, the Court does have jurisdiction to make such corrective order as may be appropriate to the enforcement of the limitations which § 3 imposes, and in the' circumstances disclosed the appropriate action is to' vacate the decree below and to' remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings to be taken independently of § 3 of the Act of August 24, 1937. See Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16; Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386, 392.

Decree vacated.