How cited: Mulford v. Smith · Go Syfert

Mulford v. Smith (1939)

green · 547 citation events across 67 courts. Showing the 24 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
193819822026
green McGautha v. California (1971)
Rule Authority · SCOTUS · 2 citations in this opinion
We have often noted the importance of administrative or judicial review in providing a check on the exercise of arbitrary power, Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 49 (1939); American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S. 90, 105 (1946), and we have made clear that judicial review is designed to reinforce internal protections against arbitrary or unconsidered action while leaving questions of policy to the agency or the Congress.
Rule Authority · SCOTUS
And since the right asserted is derived from or recognized by a federal law regulating commerce, a majority of the Court conclude that a suit to protect it against impairment by state action is a suit “arising under” a federal law “regulating commerce.” Cf. Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 46; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U. S. 350 ; Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341, 349 ; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Firemen, 323 U. S. 210, 213 .
Rule Authority · SCOTUS
Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U. S. 350 ; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 46; Turner Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St.
Rule Authority · SCOTUS
Co., 190 U. S. 273 (Interstate Commerce Act); Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 48, 49 (Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938); Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 399 (Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1937); Currin v. Wallace, 306 U. S. 1 (Federal Tobacco Inspection Act); United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U. S. 533 (Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act).
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cf. Currin v. Wallace, supra, 306 U.S. at page 16, 17 , 59 S.Ct. at page 379 , 83 L.Ed. 441 ; Mulford v. Smith, supra, 307 U.S. at page 48, 49 , 59 S.Ct. at page 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., supra, 307 U.S. at page 574, 59 S.Ct. at page 993, 83 L.Ed. 1446 .
green Cole v. AGRI (1998)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the regulatory scheme as “giv[ing] the United States a civil action for the recovery of unpaid penalties.” Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 45 (1939) (referring to “proceedings” authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1376 ) (emphasis added).
referring to “proceedings” authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1376
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
Ed. 624 ; Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 ; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 48, 49 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; Guiseppi v. Walling, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 608, 615-623 , 155 A.L.R. 761 ; United Business Corp. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 754, 755, 756 . 5 Cf. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 144 F.2d 211, 215 ; and see 324 U.S. 726, 745 , 65 S.Ct. 961 , 89 L.Ed. 1320 ; Oliver Bros. v. Federal Trade Commissio…
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
To the same effect are Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 47, 48 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; and United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, Inc., et al., 307 U.S. 533, 568 , 59 S.Ct. 993 , 83 L.Ed. 1446 .
Rule Authority · W.D.S.C.
The case is therefore one arising under a law regulating commerce of which the federal courts are given jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 41 (8), Judicial Code § 24(8); Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 46 [ 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ]; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U.S. 350 [ 62 S.Ct. 1171 , 86 L.Ed. 1525 ] ; cf. Illinois Steel Co. v. B. & O.
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
A., § 41(8); Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 46 (59 Sup. Ct. 648, 83 L. ed. 1092); Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, 6 Cir., 121 Fed. 2d, 285, 286.
Cited (see also) · SCOTUS · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e. g., Mulford v. Smith, supra, at 51 (Butler, J., dissenting); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra, at 76 (McReynolds, J., dissenting). [9] *869 That no precedent justifies today's result is particularly clear from the awkward extension of the doctrine of state immunity from federal taxation—an immunity conclusively distinguished by Mr. Justice Stone in California , and an immunity that is "narrowly limited" because "the people of all the states have created th…
Butler, J., dissenting
Cited · SCOTUS · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 46 ; Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 1938, 307 U.S. 38, 48 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 . 18 .
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See, for instance, Mulford v. Smith, 1939, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, Inc., 1939, 307 U.S. 533 , 59 S.Ct. 993 , 83 L.Ed. 1446 ; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 1940, 310 U.S. 381 , 60 S.Ct. 907 , 84 L.Ed. 1263 ; Opp Cotton Mills, Inc., v. Administrator, 1941, 312 U.S. 126, 657 , 61 S.Ct. 524 , 85 L.Ed. 624 ; Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 1943, 318 U.S. 218 , 63 S.Ct. 589 , 87 L.Ed. 724 ;…
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see
See Gall v. United States, 552 *307 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Cited · Ct. Cl. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 51 , 59 S.Ct. 648, 653-54 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 (1939).
Cited (see also) · D. Maryland · signal: see also · 3 citations in this opinion
See also Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 , and Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350 .
Cited · E.D.N.Y · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 1946, 307 U.S. 38, 46 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 .
Cited · W.D. Mich. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; Weiss v. Los Angeles Broadcasting Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 313 .
Cited · D. Me. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 1946, 307 U.S. 38, 46 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 .
Cited · S.D. Tex. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 47 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Company, Inc., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350 ; Hawthorne v. United States, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 805 .
Cited · S.D. Ga. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 46 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 390 , 62 S.Ct. 659 , 86 L.Ed. 914 ; Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, 6 Cir., 121 F.2d 285, 286 ; Brantley v. Augusta Ice & Coal Co., D.C., 52 F.Supp. 158, 160 .
green Divine v. Levy (1940)
Cited · W.D. La. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 , 'the real source of authority for decision.
Cited (see also) · OLC · signal: see also
It is well established that regulations of commerce need not be uniform, see, e.g., Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1939); see also Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 48-49 (1939), unless some other constitutional provision—such as the uniformity of duties clause, Art.