J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

U.S. Supreme Court, (April 09, 1928)

Docket number: 242
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20025973
Id. vLex: VLEX-20025973

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U.S. 369 (1974)

Supreme Court of Georgia - GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. WORD., 265 Ga. 461, 458 S.E.2.d 110 (1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Eugene Farmer, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Electric Company., 329 F.2d 3 (3rd Cir. 1964)

Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 1: Legislative Powers

U.S. Supreme Court - Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976)

U.S. Supreme Court - Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211 (1986)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - the Authors League of America, Inc., and Irwin Karp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, the Association of American Publishers, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant. v. Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights; James A. Baker, Iii, Secretary of the Treasury; and William Von Raab, Commissioner, United States Customs Service, Defendants-Appellees., 790 F.2d 220 (2nd Cir. 1986)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - National Federation of Federal Employees, Et Al., Appellants, v. United States of America, Et Al., Appellees., 905 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rogelio Garza, Defendant-Appellant., 999 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Dahl, Defendant-Appellant., 314 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2002)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court J. W. HAMPTON, JR., & CO. v. U. S., 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

[Page 276 U.S. 394, 413]

And so here the fact that Congress declares that one of its motives in fixing the rates of duty is so to fix them that they shall encourage the industries of this country in the competition with producers in other countries in the sale of goods in this country cannot invalidate a revenue act so framed. Section 315 and its provisions are within the power of Congress.

The judgment of the Court of Customs Appeals is affirmed.

Other documents:
Ranson v Ohio Dept of Transp Ohio 2005 | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Lombera-Camorlinga, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Or... | Young Ah Kim Plaintiff-Appellant v Marjorie L Hurston Chairperson Temporary Release Committee Parkside Correctional Facility of the Department of Co... | 42 CFR 485.631 - Condition of participation: Staffing and staff responsibilities. | verordening eg nr 216/2001 van de raad van 29 januari 2001 tot wijziging van v... | Subasta de la obra de reposición de cubierta de trujal en Préjano | US v. Moseley (4th Cir. 2002) | Town of Kimball West Virginia a Municipal Corporation Appellee v Aetna Casualty and Sure... | RESOLUCIO de 18 d'octubre de 1983, d'autoritzacio administrativa i declaracio d'utilitat publica d'una installacio electrica. Ref.: AS-44... | La reagrupación familiar sólo si hay capacidad de integrarse | Case of Audiencia Provincial - Madrid, Sección 2ª nº 492/2004, of November 12, 2004



© Copyright 2008, vLex. All Rights Reserved. - Terms of Use - About us - Contact us - Tags - Sources

Login | Help Center | language:

  Home   / United States   /

Case Law