|
Statutes at Large* v.* United States Code
************ "The following cases either expressly hold or support the proposition that when a conflict exists between the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) and provisions of a non-positive law title of the United States Code, the provisions of the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) prevail:
************ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
Warner v. Goltra* (1934)* 293 US 155,* 79 L.Ed. 254,* 55 S.Ct. 46;
Stephan v. United States* (1943)* 319 US 423,* 87 L.Ed. 1490,* 63 S.Ct. 1135;
Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co.* (1958)* 355 US 373,* 2 L.Ed.2d 340,* 78 S.Ct. 352;
United States v. Welden* (1964)* 377 US 95,* 12 L.Ed.2d 152,* 84 S.Ct. 1082;
United States v. Neifert-White Co.* (1968)* 390 US 228,* 19 L.Ed.2d 1061,* 88 S.Ct. 959;
Goldstein v. Cox* (1970)* 396 US 471,* 24 L.Ed.2d 663,* 90 S.Ct. 671;
United States v. Bornstein* (1976)* 423 US 303,* 46 L.Ed.2d 514,* 96 S.Ct. 523;
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County* (1983)* 463 US 855,* 77 L.Ed.2d 1072,* 103 S.Ct. 3369.
************ SECOND CIRCUIT:
Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank* (1936, CA2 NY)* 81 F.2d 19, cert den 298 US 677,* 80 L.Ed. 1398,* 56 S.Ct. 941;
United States ex rel. Kessler v. Mercur Corp.* (1936, CA2 NY)* 83 F.2d 178, cert den 299 US 576,* 81 L.Ed. 424, 57 S.Ct. 40;
United States v. Zuger* (1984, DC Conn)* 602 F.Supp. 889, aff'd without op. 755 F.2d 915, cert den 474 US 805,* 88 L.Ed.2d 32,* 106 S.Ct. 38.
************ THIRD CIRCUIT:
Royer's Inc. v. United States* (1959, CA3 Pa.)* 265 F.2d 615;
Crilly v. SEPTA* (1975, CA3 Pa.)* 529 F.2d 1355;
United States v. Hibbs* (1976, ED Pa.)* 420 F.Supp. 1365, vacated on other grounds 568 F.2d 347;
United States v. Gigli* (1984, WD Pa.)* 37 BR 939.
************ FOURTH CIRCUIT:
United States v. Shively* (1936, DC Va.)* 15 F.Supp. 107.
************ FIFTH CIRCUIT:
Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co.* (1947, CA5 Fla.)* 160 F.2d 787.
************ SIXTH CIRCUIT:
Rose v. National Cash Register Corp.* (1983,CA6 Mich.)* 703 F.2d 225, cert den 464 US 939,* 78 L.Ed.2d 317,* 104 S.Ct. 352 (1983);
Marx v. Centran Corp.* (1984, CA6 Ohio)* 747 F.2d 1536, cert den 471 US 1125,* 86 L.Ed.2d 273,* 105 S.Ct. 2656 (1985);
United States ex rel. Boyd v. McMurtry* (1933, WD Ky)* 5 F.Supp. 515.
************ SEVENTH CIRCUIT:
United States v. Vivian* (1955, CA7 Ill.)* 224 F.2d 53;
Lode v. Leonardo* (1982, ND Ill.) 557 F.Supp. 675; Young v. IRS* (1984, ND Ind.)* 596 F.Supp. 141;
United States v. Burgess* (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.)* 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227,* 1987 WL 39092.
************ EIGHTH CIRCUIT:
United States v. Wodtke* (1985, ND Iowa)* 627 F.Supp. 1034.
************ NINTH CIRCUIT:
Preston v. Heckler* (1984, CA9 Alaska)* 734 F.2d 1359, 34 CCH EPD P 34433;
Ryan v. Bilby* (1985, CA9 Ariz.)* 764 F.2d 1325;
Woner v. Lewis* (1935, DC Cal.)* 13 F.Supp. 45;
Peart v. The Motor Vessel Bering Explorer* (1974, DC Alaska)* 373 F.Supp. 927.
************ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT:
Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation* (1988, App. DC)* 854 F.2d 1438.
************ OTHER COURTS:
American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States* (1961, Ct. Cl.)* 290 F.2d 925,* 153 Ct. Cl. 201;
Best Food, Inc. v. United States* (1956) 37 Cust. Ct. 1, 147 F.Supp. 749.
************ "The two most recent cases which have addressed this matter 1* are* Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation* (1988, App. DC)* 854 F.2d 1438* and* United States v. Burgess* (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.)* 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227,* 1987 WL 39092.* In* Five Flags,* the court stated:* 'Where the language of the* Statutes at Large* conflicts with the language of the* United States Code that has not been enacted into positive law, the language of the* Statutes at Large* controls.'* In* Burgess,* the court, in addressing the constitutionality of criminal prosecution under a statute not published in the* United States Code,* stated that the* Statutes at Large* are 'legal evidence of laws,' while those laws published in the* United States Code* are only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States."
|