United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926) (No. 127)
1926
United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926) (No. 127)
Supreme Court of the United States
1926
Case name: United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. Opinion filed: 1926-10-11 Docket No.: 127 Citations: • 272 U.S. 1 • 47 S. Ct. 1 • 71 L. Ed. 131 • 1926 U.S. LEXIS 1 Case holding summaries: • “The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” • “The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absent of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” • “The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” • "The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." • we must presume that an officer exercising the powers of his office does so lawfully • "The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties" • “In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [public officers] have properly discharged their official duties.” • noting that the “pre- sumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts pre- sume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” • The “presumption of regularity” supports prosecutorial decisions, and “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that (prosecutors) have properly discharged their official duties.” • courts should “presume that [public officials] have properly discharged their official duties” • “The pr
