Legal Opinion
Bowles v. Cudahy Packing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 29, 1946No. Nos. 8882, 8888PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, circuit judge.
These cases arise under Section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(a). They involve similar facts and were tried together. Their purpose was to restrain appellant from violating Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 289 (9 F.R. 5140). They resulted in an injunction against the appellant in both cases. The defendant contends that the findings of fact were inadequate; that the Trial Judge issued the injunction as of course and that the issuance of the latter was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Court.
Regulation No. 289…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Petterson Lighterage & T. Corp. v. New York Central R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Speten v. BowlesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- McGee v. NeeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Neuman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Donald Feeley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. HaasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Boulevard Transit Lines, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.