15 U.S.C. § 701
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1933–2023 · leading case: United States v. ALA Schechter Poultry Corp., 76 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1935).
United States v. ALA Schechter Poultry Corp., 76 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1935). “Trade practices which, in normal times, would have had only an indirect and incidental effect upon interstate commerce, may substantially burden interstate commerce during a period of overproduction, unfair competition, and a reduced purchasing power.”
La Forest v. Bd. of Commissioners, 92 F.2d 547 (D.C. Cir. 1937). “195 ) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because it gave the President, in approving or prescribing codes, and thus enacting laws for the government of trade and industry, a virtually unfettered discretion, there being neither in Section 1 nor in Section 5…”
Consumers' Rsch. v. FCC, 63 F.4th 441 (5th Cir. 2023). “5 In that case, the Supreme Court took issue with 15 U.S.C. § 701’s generally unhelpful guidance to the President as he tried to regulate the interstate hot oil industry.”
Ryan v. Amazon Petroleum Corp., 71 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1934). “Whether the general purposes of the act stated in section 1 (15 USCA § 701) together with the requisites of a Code set out in section 3 (15 USCA § 703) or elsewhere are statements of an intelligible legislative plan sufficient to be filled out and executed by a commission after…”
Missouri Utils. Co. v. City of California, 8 F. Supp. 454 (W.D. Mo. 1934). “639 , decided by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas February 12, 1934, the validity of title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act [15 USCA § 701 et seq.] was in question. The only reference in the opinion to the general welfare provision is in a quotation…”
Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. City of Kennett, Mo., 78 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1935). “195 [15 USCA § 701 et seq.]) or under the President’s Re-employment Agreement, except “when the Government determines that this requirement is not in the public interest or that the consequent cost is unreasonable.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Wallace, 75 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1935). “ace claims that his activities and those of his corespondents were directed toward bringing about prosecution of coal dealers who sell at short weight, misrepresent their coal, and overcharge consumers; and that these activities are in harmony and co-operation with the National…”
Burco, Inc. v. Whitworth, 81 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1936). “195 (see 15 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.), sought to impose upon conditions of local trade, and that which the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, 48 Stat.”
United States v. Harding, 81 F.2d 563 (D.C. Cir. 1936). “The indictment recites the passage by Congress of an act approved June 16, 1933, referred to as the National Industrial Recovery Act, and sets out the provisions of section 1 of title 1 of the Act ( 15 U.S.C.A. § 701 ). The indictment then recites that Congress gave the…”
Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood, Cnty., Sc, 10 F. Supp. 854 (W.D.S.C. 1935). “We take judicial cognizance of the facts set out in section 1, title 1, of the National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 701), that the country was and is confronted with a national emergency productive of widespread unemployment and disorganization of industry, and that…”
Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. United States, 31 F. Supp. 35 (D.D.C. 1939). “195 , 15 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. [10] Sec. 204(b), 49 U.”
Kent Stores of New Jersey v. Wilentz, 14 F. Supp. 1 (D.N.J. 1936). “A code of fair competition under the late National Recovery Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq., was approved, and therefore promulgated by the President on November 8, 1933, ^Bulletin No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.