Adrian, Inc. v. Fleming
Emergency Court of Appeals
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
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
- White Trimming House, Inc. v. PorterEmergency Court of Appeals · 1946
- Reliance Mfg. Co. v. FlemingEmergency Court of Appeals · 1947
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ursini v. Menninger FoundationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1974