Legal Opinion
Bowles v. Chew
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 13, 1944No. 22778-GPublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODMAN, District Judge.
On September 26, 1943, plaintiff, as Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, commenced this action, pursuant to § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, Public Law, 421, 77th Congress 2nd Sess., 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C. A. Appendix, § 925(e), to recover treble damages from defendant, a lumber broker and wholesaler, because of sales in excess of established maximum prices. Maximum Price Regs. 26, 215.
The record shows that in August 1943, representatives of plaintiff, acting upon information received that defendant was violating maximum price…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. MacIntoshSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. MulliganDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Harper v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Allred v. GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Bowles v. Beatrice Creamery Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
- Speten v. BowlesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.