Warning

Info

Table of Contents
LegalWriter, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

SEC v. Chenery Corp.

(1947)

Supreme Court of the United States - 332 U.S. 194

tl;dr:

Federal agencies can formulate standards of conduct through ad hoc adjudication in addition to the rulemaking process.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for SEC v. Chenery Corp.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the SEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingSEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief facts & holding

Facts:The Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) mandates a change...

Holding:Holding (Murphy): Federal agencies are entrusted by the legislature to...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the SEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
SEC v. Chenery Corp. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Mr. Justice Murphy
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court found that the SEC's original order was invalid as there was no lack of disclosure or fraud in the preferred stock purchase. The subsequent order approving the amended plan was also improper as it was based solely on judicial authority. Officers and directors of a corporation do not have a fiduciary duty to its stockholders that precludes them from buying and selling the corporation's stock. The SEC's denial of Federal Water and Gas Corp.'s application for an amendment to the reorganization plan was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and the case was remanded to the Commission. The SEC has the discretion to use rule-making or individual orders to address unforeseeable problems, and retroactive application of a new standard of conduct is allowed if the harm is not greater than the ill effect of retroactivity. The SEC's decision to deny effectiveness to the proposed amendment to the Federal reorganization plan was justified based on the particular facts of the case, the Commission's general experience in reorganization matters, and its informed view of statutory requirements. The court cannot overturn the Commission's conclusion in this case as the facts are undisputed, and the Commission has made an informed and expert judgment, taking into account the subtle factors that led to the enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the SEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Mr. Justice Jackson
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion in this case disagrees with the Court's decision to uphold an administrative order that requires certain individuals to surrender their preferred stock to the corporation at a price lower than its value. The dissent argues that this order is not related to the Commission's duty to determine the fairness of the reorganization plan and undermines the purpose of judicial review. The Court's reliance on administrative experience alone is not sufficient to justify the order, and the absence of a legal or regulatory basis cannot be overlooked. The passage raises questions about the significance of administrative experience in legal matters and the interpretation of statutes, and whether it should be definitive in fact-finding or simply one factor to take into account.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the SEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the SEC v. Chenery Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

SEC v. Chenery Corp.

Chat for SEC v. Chenery Corp.
brief-561
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.