| 词条 | Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan |ArgueDateA=December 10 |ArgueDateB=11 |ArgueYear=1934 |DecideDate=January 7 |DecideYear=1935 |FullName=Panama Refining Co., et al. v. Ryan, et al. |USVol=293 |USPage=388 |ParallelCitations=55 S. Ct. 241; 79 L. Ed. 446; 1935 U.S. LEXIS 251 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=Specific parameters must be laid down in the delegation of power to the President to enforce legislative statutes. |SCOTUS=1932-1937 |Majority=Hughes |JoinMajority=Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, Roberts |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence2= |JoinConcurrence2= |Concurrence/Dissent= |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent=Cardozo |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied= }} Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), also known as the Hot Oil case, was a case, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Roosevelt Administration's prohibition of interstate and foreign trade in petroleum goods produced in excess of state quotas, the "hot oil" orders adopted under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, was unconstitutional. The ruling was the first of several that overturned key elements of the Administration's New Deal legislative program. The relevant section 9(c) of the NIRA was found to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, as it permitted presidential interdiction of trade without defining criteria for the application of the proposed restriction. The finding thus differed from later rulings that argued that federal government action affecting intrastate production breached the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; in Panama v. Ryan, the Court found that Congress had violated the nondelegation doctrine by vesting the President with legislative powers without clear guidelines, giving the President enormous and unchecked powers. The omission of Congressional guidance on state petroleum production ceilings occasioned the adverse ruling because it allowed the executive to assume the role of the legislature. Justice Cardozo dissented, claiming that the guidelines had been sufficient. See also
Further reading
External links{{wikisource|Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan Amazon Petroleum Corporation}}
| case = Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, {{ussc|293|388|1935|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/293/388 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/102353/panama-refining-co-v-ryan/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/293/388.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10130406102283538540 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/388/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep293/usrep293388/usrep293388.pdf{{SCOTUS-stub}} 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court|United States Commerce Clause case law|United States energy case law|1935 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。