 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - 1952 - 1030 str.
...given by the Interstate Commerce Commission, we have not been spoken to with sufficient clearness. "We must know what a decision means before the duty...right or wrong." United States v. Chicago, M., St. P.&P.R. Co., 294 US 499, 511. Therefore, I think the decision below should be reversed with direction... | |
 | United States. Interstate Commerce Commission - 1957 - 896 str.
...therefor. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & PR Co., 294 US 499, 511, "We must know what a decision means before the duty...becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong." The test of interpretation which the Court itself set forth in Piedmont <& N. Ry. Co. v. Interstate... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1938 - 126 str.
...first he insisted that they must be precise and clear. "We must know what a decision means," he said,61 "before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong." But aside from this requirement he was ready to accept the facts found as virtually conclusive. To... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1943 - 872 str.
...St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 US 499, 506. Mr. Justice Cardozo speaking for the Court stated in that case, "We must know what a decision means before the duty...becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong." 294 US p. 511. That was said about another obscure and vague report of the Interstate Commerce Commission.... | |
 | United States. National Labor Relations Board - 1975 - 1240 str.
...States v. Chicago, M., P. & RR Co., 294 US 499, 511, 55 S.Ct. 462, 467, 79 L.Ed. 1023, 1032 (1935): "We must know what a decision means before the duty...becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong." See also Sec'y of Agriculture v. Unites States, 347 US 645, 654, 74 S.Ct. 826, 98 L.Ed. 1015 (1954);... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1944 - 922 str.
...know what it is that the Commission has really determined in order that they may know what to review. "We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or 685 FRANKFURTER, J., dissenting. wrong." See United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & PR Co., 294 US... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary - 1955 - 900 str.
...not explained its position with the "simplicity and clearness'' necessary to tell the Court "what the 4, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, shall be applic wrong'1 ; his primary concern was that the Commission had "not related its analysis of this industry... | |
 | United States. Department of the Interior - 1975 - 874 str.
...* * In the end we are left to spell out, to argue, to choose between conflicting inferences. * * * We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong. [2] An additional reason for remand is present in the question of whether Holland Livestock Eanch is... | |
 | U.S. Atomic Energy Commission - 1962 - 1130 str.
...simplicity and clearness through which a halting Impression ripens Into reasonable certitude. . . . We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say v better It Is right or wrong." r.8. T. Chicago, 11. St. P. A P. By. Co., 294 US 499 (1034). The Supreme... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - 1964 - 796 str.
...whether there was substantial evidence when it cannot tell how the Commission arrived at its figures? "We must know what a decision means before the duty...whether it is right or wrong." United States v. Chicago, BLACK, J., dissenting. 375 US M., St. P. & PR Co., 294 US 499, 511. Explicit reasons for its result... | |
| |
We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong. 
