Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “catchall provision” is “to be read as bringing within a statute categories similar in type to those specifically enumerated”
• holding that a “catchall provision” was “to be read as bringing within a statute categories similar in type to those specifically enumerated”
• noting that catch-all “clauses are to be read as bringing within a statute categories similar in type to those specifically enumerated”
• refusing, in light of specific grants of authority, to construe ambiguous provisions as creating further authority, “a purpose for which [they] obviously w[ere] not intended”
• discussing “the ‘rule of lenity’ requiring strict construction of criminal statutes”
• agency may not “bootstrap itself into an area into which it has no jurisdiction by repeatedly violating its statutory mandate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).