Rutherford v. United States · ¶84

This Court's cases interpreting similarly broad terms across different contexts support this understanding. This Court has opined that it is “impossible to anticipate and define every situation that might” qualify as involving “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant federal interference with an ongoing state criminal prosecution. Kugler v. Hel fant, 421 U. S. 117, 124–125 (1975). It has also “struggle[d] in vain for any verbal formula that will supply a ready touchstone” for distinguishing between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” business expenses. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U. S. 111, 114–115 (1933).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.