Legal Opinion

Bowles v. McCrady Const. Co.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 1, 1946No. Civil Action No. 4973PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

GOURLEY, District Judge.

This is a civil action brought by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration against the defendant, Mc-Crady Construction Company, under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 205 (a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 56 Stat. 23, 765; 57 Stat. 566; Public Law 383, 78th Cong. 58 Stat. 632; Public Law 108, 79th Cong., 59 Stat. 306, 50 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.; Executive Order 9250, 7 F.R. 7871, and Executive Order 9328, 8 F.R. 4681, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 901 note.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant knowingly…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Brown v. Hecht Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
  4. Walling v. Shenandoah-Dives Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1943
  5. Bowles v. HuffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Whether Members of the Sentencing Commission Who Were Appointed Prior to the Enactment of a Holdover Statute May Exercise Holdover Rights Pursuant to the Statute, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel1994

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

Powered by the Exa API