Legal Opinion
Bowles v. Sacher
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 8, 1944No. Nos. 104, 105PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
These two appeals were heard together and may be dealt with in a single opinion. In each case the action was brought under section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(a), to enjoin alleged violations of regulations promulgated under section 2 of the Act. In the Sacher suit the defendant partnership was a wholesale dealer in furs, skins and peltries, and was subject after May 11, 1942, to the General Maximum Price Regulation (7 F.R. 3153); in the Son-nenschein suit the defendant partnership was a manufacturer of women’s fur garments…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Bowles v. Town Hall Grill, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1944
- Brown v. SacherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1943
3Cited by9 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bowles v. LeitholdCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Bowles v. HudspethDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1945
- Bowles v. LeitholdDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
- Bowles v. Henry Lustig & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.