Legal Opinion
Alcohol Warehouse Corporation v. Canfield
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 8, 1926No. 195PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We decline to consider this case upon the merits, because of the absence of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as a defendant. The cause is of a class now well recognized in the decisions of the Supreme Court, where an official is charged with duties under a statute, which he may and does execute by means of deputies, and where, whatever the former practice, courts will not now review the conduct of the deputies, in the absence of the superior for whom they have acted. The theory which lies back of the doctrine is not altogether clear. It may be because…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Warner Valley Stock Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Texas v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Gnerich v. RutterSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Redlands Foothill Groves v. JacobsDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1940
- National Conference on Legalizing Lotteries, Inc. v. GoldmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Raichle v. Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Massachusetts Farmers Defense Committee v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
- Moore v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.