Legal Opinion

Adrian, Inc. v. Fleming

Emergency Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 1947No. 394PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

LINDLEY, Judge.

Complainant, a manufacturer of women’s apparel, asserts invalidity of Supplementary Order 108,' Special Order No. 9 and Revised Special Order No. 9, commonly known as the maximum average price regulations. Despite the present status of price control, in view of the fact that a suit to recover treble damages is pending, this court retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of these orders during the period covered by the Administrat- or’s suit. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Bowles, Em.App., 147 F.2d 858.

Originally the prices of manufacturers of such products were controlled by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. White Trimming House, Inc. v. PorterEmergency Court of Appeals · 1946
  3. Reliance Mfg. Co. v. FlemingEmergency Court of Appeals · 1947

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ursini v. Menninger FoundationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API