Quackenbush v. United States: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
←Created page with '{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} {{Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Ryder v. United States |ArgueDate=February 1 |ArgueYear=1900 |DecideDate=March 19 |DecideYear=1900 |FullName= |USVol=177 |USPage=20 |ParallelCitations= |Docket= |OralArgument= |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=The appointment of an officer of the United States and the issuance of his commission are distinct acts. The commission cannot alter the appointment as...' |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|Prior= |
|Prior= |
||
|Subsequent= |
|Subsequent= |
||
|Holding=The appointment of an [[officer of the United States]] and the issuance of his commission are distinct acts. |
|Holding=The appointment of an [[officer of the United States]] and the issuance of his commission are distinct acts. Appointments must be made as required by law and the commission cannot alter these requirements. |
||
|Majority=Fuller |
|Majority=Fuller |
||
|JoinMajority=''unanimous'' |
|JoinMajority=''unanimous'' |
Revision as of 20:35, 14 April 2024
Ryder v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 1, 1900 Decided March 19, 1900 | |
Full case name | Quackenbush v. United States |
Citations | 177 U.S. 20 (more) |
Holding | |
The appointment of an officer of the United States and the issuance of his commission are distinct acts. Appointments must be made as required by law and the commission cannot alter these requirements. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Fuller, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 |
Quackenbush v. United States, 177 U.S. 20 (1900), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.
References
External links