Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot (1945)

Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S., at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, ‘a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated’”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U. S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 294 U. S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, S…

Secs. 206-207 . 25 I would affirm. * Honorable Virgil Pittman, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation 1 See also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 503 , 65 S.Ct. 335, 341 , 89 L.Ed. 414 (1945) ("production" includes "all steps whether manufacture or not, which lead to readiness for putting goods into the stream of commerce").

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 , 65 S. Ct. 335, 341 (1945) (“[S]tatutory definitions of terms used therein prevail over colloquial meanings.”).

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 514 (1945) (“[T]he judicial function does not allow us to disregard that which Congress has plainly and constitu- tionally decreed and to formulate exceptions which we think, for practical reasons, Congress might have made had it thought more about the problem.”); United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 559 (1979) (“Whether, as a policy matter, an exemption should be created is a ques- tion for legislative judgment, not judicial inference.”).…

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 501 (1945) (“[W]e take the Act as Congress gave it to us, without attempting to confirm it to any notions of what Congress would have done if the circumstances of this case had been put before it.”).

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 501 (1945) (“[W]e take the Act as Congress gave it to us, without attempting to confirm it to any notions of what Congress would have done if the circumstances of this case had been put before it.”).

See also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) (“statutory definitions of terms . . . prevail over colloquial meanings”).

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 514 (1945) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (“[T]he judicial function does not allow us to disregard that which Congress has plainly and constitutionally decreed and to formulate exceptions which we think, for practical reasons, Congress might have made had it thought more about the prob- lem.”); United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 559 (1979) (“Whether, as a policy matter, an exemption should be created is a question for legislative judgment, not…

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 503, 504 , 65 S. Ct. 335, 342 , 89 L.Ed. 414 , two circuits have held that the banking business is within that term.

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 503, 504 , 65 S.Ct. 335, 342 , 89 L.Ed. 414 , two circuits have held that the banking business is within that term.

Co. v. Benjamin (1946) 328 U.S. 408, 423 [ 90 L.Ed. 1342, 1356-1357 , 66 S.Ct. 1142 , 164 A.L.R. 476 ]; see also Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) 379 U.S. 241 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 258 , 85 S.Ct. 348 ]; Weiss v. United States (1939) 308 U.S. 321 [ 84 L.Ed. 298 , 60 S.Ct. 269 ]; cf. American Power Co. v. S.E.C. (1946) 329 U.S. 90 [ 91 L.Ed. 103 , 67 S.Ct. 133 ]) to regulate telegraph and telephone lines as instrumentalities of interstate commerce (Western Union v. Lenroot (1945) …

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 510 (1945) (Murphy, J., dissenting).

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945), as “a tortured mess”), 69:13–18 (plaintiffs’ counsel commenting “the D.C.

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 503 (1945)).

The regulation includes an illustrative list of [ojther articles or subjects of commerce which fall within the definition of “goods.” This illustrative list includes, as relevant to this case, the following items: “... written reports, fiscal and other statements and accounts, correspondence, ... and other documents; ... bills of lading, checks, drafts, negotiable notes and other commercial paper....” 29 C.F.R. § 776.20 (b). 3 In Western Union v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 ,…

Id., 323 U.S. at 503-04 , 65 S.Ct. at 342 (emphases added).

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, at 501 , 65 S.Ct. 335, at 341 , 89 L.Ed. 414, at 423 (1944). 1A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed.), § 20.08, 59-61; 2A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed.), § 47.04, 76-80.

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 498-499, 501 , 65 S.Ct. 335 , 89 L.Ed. 414 (1945).

Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 501 [ 65 S.Ct. 335 , 89 L.Ed. 414 ] ; Radin, A Case Study in Statutory Interpretation (1945) 33 Cal.L.Rev. 219, 224.) It should be noted in this connection that in the original bill the general term “business establishments” was not, as now, followed by the words "of every kind whatsoever ’ ’ and that those words were added in the draft that deleted the specific reference to the purchase of real property.

See Western Union v. Lenroot, 1945, 323 U.S. 490, 502 , 65 S.Ct. 335 , 89 L.Ed. 414 ; Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 1935, 294 U.S. 87, 95 , *888 55 S.Ct. 333 , 79 L.Ed. 780 .

See, e.g., Western Union v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945).