Legal Opinion
Bowles v. Leithold
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 28, 1945No. 3938PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, District Judge.
This is an action for an injunction brought by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration pursuant to Section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(a). The defendants, William and Emily Leithold, individually and as copartners trading as the Custom Maid Brassiere Company, are charged with failing to comply with the basic record-keeping provisions of General Maximum Price Regulation (7 F.R. 3153) and Maximum Price Regulation No. 220 (7 F.R. 7282). Sections 1499.11 and 1499.12 of the General…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Meredith v. Winter HavenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Manville Corp. v. Equity Security Holders Committee (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- F. & M. SCHAEFER CORP. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977