Case Citator › Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.

Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
337 U.S. 682
Decided
Confirmed treatments
6
Flagged citations read
79 of 79
Citing cases (total)
1,701
Treatment dates
1979–2023
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. has been superseded by statute in part and questioned: all 79 flagged citations have been read, and the 6 confirmed treatments are listed below. The 1976 amendment to APA § 702 replaced Larson's sovereign-immunity exceptions where the amendment's waiver applies, while the Quiet Title Act displaced Larson officer suits challenging federal title to real property.
More on how this was screened

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman questioned Larson's ultra vires doctrine in the Eleventh Amendment context, and two later district courts questioned the doctrine's continued force after the APA amendment. The remaining opinions applied Larson, reported Larson's treatment of older cases, repeated other courts' treatment as history, or directed nearby adverse language at unrelated authorities. CourtListener lists Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Brown more than once; each copy was read, but they produce one treatment.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,701 later cases cite Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.; 79 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by Statute

  • The Third Circuit held that the 1976 amendment to APA § 702 effectively repealed Larson's sovereign-immunity bar to specific enforcement against a federal officer, subject to statutes that separately forbid the requested relief.

    Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Brown · Third Circuit · filed

    The amendment2 in effect repealed the Larson holding but with the limitation that the revisions do not confer “authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” Id.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act displaced Larson officer suits as a means to challenge the United States' title to real property.

    Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of University & School Lands · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Accordingly, we need not reach the question whether, prior to 1972, Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 *286U. S. 682 (1949), and Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U. S. 643 (1962), would have permitted an officer’s suit to be maintained under the present circumstances.22 We hold that Congress intended the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.23
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit held that the 1976 amendment to APA § 702 superseded Larson's officer-suit exceptions where the amendment's waiver applies, while preserving the exceptions outside the waiver's scope.

    E.V. v. Robinson · Ninth Circuit · filed

    We conclude that the 1976 amendment superseded the Larson exceptions only for suits in which the amendment’s waiver provision applies, but did not abrogate the exceptions where the waiver does not apply.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Supreme Court questioned the continued vitality of Larson's ultra vires doctrine in the Eleventh Amendment context and held that any surviving exception is very narrow.

    Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    For present purposes, however, we do no more than question the continued vitality of the ultra vires doctrine in the Eleventh Amendment context. We hold only that to the extent the doctrine is consistent with the analysis of this opinion, it is a very narrow exception that will allow suit only under the standards set forth in n. 11, supra.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Southern District of Florida questioned the Larson-Dugan exception's continued vitality after the 1976 APA amendment, while applying it because the APA did not cover the federal court official before it.

    Locke v. Warren · S.D. Fla. · filed

    But the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) in 1976 has cast grave doubts on the continued vitality of the Larson-Dugan exception.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eastern District of Texas questioned whether the APA amendment abrogated Larson's officer-suit doctrine, while holding that Larson did not support jurisdiction on the pleaded facts.

    Burnett Specialists v. Abruzzo · E.D. Tex. · filed

    And there is an open question on whether the APA abrogated the doctrine that Larson espoused.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace