Legal Opinion
United States v. Ethan Stangland, United States of America v. Max Munk
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 3, 1957No. 11739_1PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINDLEY, Circuit Judge.
Defendants appeal from judgments entered in suits by the United States to recover penalties claimed to be due as a result of wheat grown by them in excess of their farm marketing quotas, as defined by the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. As the two causes involve similar facts and identical issues of law, they have been consolidated for disposition.
As announced in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 115, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122, the general purpose of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, insofar as it relates to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Currin v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- United States v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Luther F. Grant and Sirrka v. Grant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Cities Service Co. v. Federal Energy AdministrationTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1975
- South Carolina ex rel. Tindal v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Public Utility Commission of the State of Oregon State of OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Zwick v. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.