PARSONS ET AL.

v.

KNOPP ET UX.; NATIONAL INDIAN YOUTH COUNCIL ET AL. V. BRUCE ET AL.; THEVIS V. UNITED STATES; TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; TIDEWATER OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; MERVIN V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; KUNTZWEILER V. UNITED STATES; BALDRIDGE ET AL. V. HADLEY ET AL.; LOWE ET AL. V. UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.; KONIGSBERG ET AL. V. NIXON; UMPHREY ET AL. V. MCGRAW-EDISON CO.; MANZARDO ET AL. V. PULLMAN CO. ET AL.; DEMICHELE ET UX. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO.; KOKOSZKA V. BELFORD, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY; HUGUEZ V. CALIFORNIA; FRAZIER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Mauro Cantu, Jr., 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …e.” We have held, however, that indictments are valid where they track the language of the appropriate statute unless “the statute omits an essential element of the offense.” United States v. Thevis, 5 Cir., 1973, 484 F. 2d 1149, 1152, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 886, 95 S.Ct. 158, 42 L.Ed.2d 129 (1974). In this case, the word complained of, “shield,” is taken directly from the statute and it does not appear that the statute omits any essential element of the offense. Therefore, the choice of language in the ind…
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Train, 545 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1976)
  …cated by its various provisions, and give to it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature. . . .” Chief Justice Burger, in Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974), reh. denied, 419 U.S. 886, 95 S.Ct. 160, 42 L.Ed.2d 131 (1974) (citation omitted). The structure of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1970, its legislative history, and the judicial gloss placed upon the Act leave no room for an interpretation which makes the issuance of air…