31:
311:
249:
argued that the government had other remedies, so even if 6(b) were strictly construed, it would not limit the government's ability regulate the
Respondent's ability to trade in grain futures. The Court declined to discuss any other possible remedies the government may have had, including section 9, and instead constructed 6(b) strictly. The Seventh Circuit decision was affirmed.
248:
The Court held that
Section 6(b) of the Grain Futures Act could only be applied to ongoing activity, not activity that had ceased at the time of trial. The government argued that 6(b) had to apply retroactively due to the nature of ongoing investigations into reporting irregularities. The Respondent
239:
Cutten was barred from trade for two years after a hearing before a commission composed of the
Secretary of Agriculture, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce. Cutten successfully appealed his claim that the sanctions could not be applied to behavior that had ceased at the time of the hearing
235:
when he had commitments in excess of 500,000 bushels. The complaint also alleged that he conspired with other grain firms to hide his net position from the Grain
Futures Administration, and he reported false information to the Administration.
263:
97:
Authority under section 6(b) of the Grain Future Act is limited to suspending a trader who was currently violating provisions Act, not to punishing violations that occurred in the past.
396:
232:
401:
326:
286:
72:
391:
240:
to the
Seventh Circuit, and the court set aside the prior judgment. The government appealed the verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court.
315:
406:
212:
208:
35:
231:
on April 11, 1934 alleging that Cutten had not reported his net position in futures that he controlled to the
373:
355:
337:
144:
364:
128:
330:
290:
64:
346:
293:
112:
8:
164:
120:
216:
194:
140:
258:
228:
67:
152:
132:
385:
264:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases on commodity and futures regulation
219:
was limited to prevent continued violation of the act, not past violations.
156:
83:
227:
The
Secretary of Agriculture served a complaint upon the Respondent,
310:
79:
30:
397:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
383:
207:, 298 U.S. 229 (1936), was a case in which the
402:United States commodity and futures case law
243:
384:
213:United States Secretary of Agriculture
18:1936 United States Supreme Court case
54:Wallace, et al. v. Arthur W. Cutten
13:
209:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
418:
392:United States Supreme Court cases
333:229 (1936) is available from:
303:
309:
29:
211:held that the authority of the
407:1936 in United States case law
276:
1:
269:
222:
233:Grain Futures Administration
7:
252:
10:
423:
193:
188:
177:
172:
106:
101:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
43:Argued April 27, 1936
244:Opinion of the Court
181:Brandeis, joined by
45:Decided May 18, 1936
374:Library of Congress
165:Benjamin N. Cardozo
129:James C. McReynolds
121:Willis Van Devanter
117:Associate Justices
78:56 S. Ct. 753; 80
323:Wallace v. Cutten
316:Wallace v. Cutten
314:Works related to
283:Wallace v. Cutten
217:Grain Futures Act
204:Wallace v. Cutten
200:
199:
195:Grain Futures Act
141:George Sutherland
113:Charles E. Hughes
24:Wallace v. Cutten
414:
378:
372:
369:
363:
360:
354:
351:
345:
342:
336:
313:
297:
280:
259:Arthur W. Cutten
229:Arthur W. Cutten
102:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
422:
421:
417:
416:
415:
413:
412:
411:
382:
381:
376:
370:
367:
361:
358:
352:
349:
343:
340:
334:
306:
301:
300:
281:
277:
272:
255:
246:
225:
155:
153:Harlan F. Stone
143:
131:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
420:
410:
409:
404:
399:
394:
380:
379:
356:Google Scholar
319:
305:
304:External links
302:
299:
298:
274:
273:
271:
268:
267:
266:
261:
254:
251:
245:
242:
224:
221:
198:
197:
191:
190:
186:
185:
179:
175:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
133:Louis Brandeis
118:
115:
110:
104:
103:
99:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
419:
408:
405:
403:
400:
398:
395:
393:
390:
389:
387:
375:
366:
357:
348:
339:
338:CourtListener
332:
328:
324:
320:
318:at Wikisource
317:
312:
308:
307:
295:
292:
288:
284:
279:
275:
265:
262:
260:
257:
256:
250:
241:
237:
234:
230:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:
196:
192:
187:
184:
180:
176:
171:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:Pierce Butler
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:Chief Justice
108:
107:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
322:
296: (1936).
282:
278:
247:
238:
226:
203:
202:
201:
189:Laws applied
182:
173:Case opinion
160:
157:Owen Roberts
148:
136:
124:
71:
53:
15:
82:1157; 1936
386:Categories
270:References
223:Background
215:under the
84:U.S. LEXIS
183:unanimous
60:Citations
321:Text of
294:229, 235
253:See also
178:Majority
347:Findlaw
92:Holding
377:
371:
368:
365:Justia
362:
359:
353:
350:
344:
341:
335:
285:,
163:
161:·
159:
151:
149:·
147:
139:
137:·
135:
127:
125:·
123:
80:L. Ed.
329:
289:
331:U.S.
291:U.S.
73:more
65:U.S.
63:298
327:298
287:298
86:710
68:229
388::
325:,
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
