Search for: "Humphrey's Executor v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 60
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2017, 8:26 am by Jonathan H. Adler
While we do not agree with all of the reasoning in the panel’s opinion, the United States agrees with the panel’s conclusion that singleheaded agencies are meaningfully different from the type of multi-member regulatory commission addressed in Humphrey’s Executor. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 6:56 am
Law Articulated by Regulatory Agencies ― The Administrative Function --Administrative Procedure Act --Notes and Questions --Breger, Administrative Law After Forty Years --Notes and Questions --Humphrey's Executor v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 3:31 am by Lyle Denniston
  A 1935 Supreme Court decision, in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 7:32 pm by Brian Wolfman
United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (approving “for cause” removal protections for FTC heads). [read post]
4 May 2014, 9:30 pm by Kirti Datla
Moreover, our approach undermines enduring dicta in Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 8:01 am by Richard A. Epstein
This modest slap on the wrist is strong evidence that the current conservative Justices will not take on the constitutional status of independent agencies, which were accepted in Humphrey’s Executor v, United States (1935), even though these could be challenged on the ground that the so-called “fourth branch” of government does not fit into the tripartite constitutional structure with its legislative, executive, and judicial branches. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 6:39 am by Rick Pildes
But consider the range of national and state legislation and presidential action the Court held unconstitutional in one 17-month period starting in January, 1935: the NIRA, both its Codes of Fair Competition and the president's power to control the flow of contraband oil across state lines; the Railroad Retirement Act; the Frazier-Lemke Farm Mortgage Moratorium Act; the effort of the president to get the administrative agencies to reflect his political vision (Humphrey's… [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 4:48 pm by Simon Chester
Khalid 2010 ONCA 861 United States of America v. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 2:37 pm by Tom Goldstein
For example, he explained:  “So you have got ‘for cause’ squared, and that’s – that’s a significant limitation that Humphrey’s Executor didn’t recognize and Morrison didn’t recognize.” [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 4:43 am by Broc Romanek
Respondents' Argument US Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case for the United States, which previously intervened in the case. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:35 pm
Carvin of Jones Day in Washington (30 minutes), for the United States will be Solicitor General Elena Kagan (20 minutes), and for the Board will be Jeffrey A. [read post]