Rogers v. Calumet National Bank, 358 U.S. 331 (1959)

U.S. Supreme Court

Rogers v. Calumet National Bank, 358 U.S. 331 (1959)

Rogers v. Calumet National Bank

No. 468

Decided January 26, 1959

358 U.S. 331

Syllabus

Certiorari granted.

A state court is without power to review the discretion exercised by the Attorney General of the United States under federal law in connection with the issuance of a vesting order under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

128 Ind.App. 628, 149 N.E.2d 214, reversed and cause remanded.

U.S. Supreme Court

Rogers v. Calumet National Bank, 358 U.S. 331 (1959)

Rogers v. Calumet National Bank

No. 468

Decided January 26, 1959

358 U.S. 331

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

APPELLATE COURT OF INDIANA

Syllabus

Certiorari granted.

A state court is without power to review the discretion exercised by the Attorney General of the United States under federal law in connection with the issuance of a vesting order under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

128 Ind.App. 628, 149 N.E.2d 214, reversed and cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We are of the view that, under Silesian-American Corp. v. Markham, 156 F.2d 793, 796, affirmed, 332 U. S. 469, a state court is without power to review the discretion exercised by the Attorney General of the United States under federal law. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the Appellate Court of Indiana. On remand, the Indiana courts are, of course, free to consider other questions presented by this record in light of General License 94, 12 Fed.Reg. 1457, as it may have affected the definition of "national" in Executive Order 9095, 7 Fed.Reg. 1971, as amended, and Executive Order 8389, 5 Fed.Reg. 1400. See GMO. Niehaus & Co. v. United States, 139 Ct.Cl. 605, 153 F.Supp. 428.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.