United States v. Gilmet

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the child-labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are independent of the minimum-wage provisions
• stating that the “plain words and meaning of a statute cannot be overcome by a legislative history which through strained processes of deduction from events of wholly ambiguous significance, may furnish dubious bases for inference in every direction”
• stating that when an administrator is given authority to issue regulations “necessary to carry out” the purposes of the statute, “nothing short of express limitation or abuse of discretion in finding that the necessity exists should undermine the action taken to execute it”
• upholding regulation under Fair Labor Standards Act on ground that the regulation was necessary to avoid self-nullification of the statute and “absolutely essential” to maintain the wage rate
• rejecting argument that deletion in con­ ference of an illustrative parenthetical phrase from a bill meant that Congress intended to circumvent the authority conferred by the bill where parenthetical had been both inserted and deleted without comment
• quoted with approval in Schierstead v. City of Brigantine, 29 N.J. 220, 231, 148 A. 2d 591, 596 (1959)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).