Legal Opinion

Pinsky v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 8, 1953No. 13250PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment requiring the appellants, as part owners of certain housing accommodations in Los Angeles, to .refund to the United States for the benefit of certain named tenants, sums claimed to have been overcharges of rent. The action was brought in the name of the Blousing Expediter. The principal defense was that under the terms of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq., the establishment in which these housing accommodations were located was a hotel and hence within an express exception to that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Department of Agriculture, Emergency Crop and Feed Loans v. RemundSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. United States v. KoikeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
  4. Woods v. RichmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
  5. Fleming v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1948

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Poindexter v. FolsomCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  2. Poindexter v. FolsomCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API