Legal Opinion
Reichel-Korfmann Co. v. Porter
Emergency Court of Appeals
Decided May 23, 1946No. 295PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINDLEY, Judge.
Complainant protested Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 279 (8 FR 11586) issued August 19, 1943, as amended by Amendment No. 3 dated September 2, 1944 (9 FR 10922), insisting that the regulation as amended does not effectuate the purposes of the Price Control Act and is, therefore, beyond the scope of the Administrator’s statutory authority. The report of a board of review was approved, the protest denied; whereupon complainant came to this court.
The regulation establishes specific dollar and cent maximum prices for sales of hops at various distributive levels. It recognizes…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Consolidated Water Power & Paper Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1944
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
- United States v. JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1944
- Flett v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1944
- People v. D'EspositoNew York City Magistrates' Court · 1944
3Cited by3 opinions
- Norman-Frank, Inc. v. Arnall, Director of Price StabilizationEmergency Court of Appeals · 1952
- Reliance Mfg. Co. v. FlemingEmergency Court of Appeals · 1947
- Tanners Hides Inc. Of Texas v. Charles H. Kendall, Assistant Director, Office of Defense MobilizationEmergency Court of Appeals · 1955