Legal Opinion

Henderson v. Bryan

District Court, S.D. California

Decided August 20, 1942No. 2127-BHPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARRISON, District Judge.

In this action plaintiff seeks to enjoin the above named defendants from the selling of rubber tires and tubes to consumers without tire rationing certificates, contrary to the tire rationing regulations (Dec. 27, 1941, to date). See 6 F.R. 6406, 6 F.R. 6792, 6 F.R. 6795, 7 F.R. 925, 7 F.R. 72, 7 F.R. 1027, 7 F.R. 1089.

After December 10, 1941, when regulations were promulgated concerning new tires and tubes, the defendant Bryan, a tire dealer, continued to sell in large quantities new tires and tubes, and recapped and retreaded tires, to consumers at large during a…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Madden v. Kentucky Ex Rel. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wissner v. WissnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Gray v. Commodity Credit CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1945
  3. Perkins v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1943
  4. United States v. Beit Bros.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1943
  5. United States v. WrightDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1943

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API