|
|
Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946)
Porter v. Warner Holding Co. No. 793 Argued May 2, 3, 1946 Decided June 3, 1946 328 U.S. 395
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. In an enforcement proceeding under § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, a Federal District Court has power to order restitution of rents collected by a landlord in excess of maximums established by regulations issued under the Act. Pp. 398-399.
2. Under the provision of § 205(a) authorizing the District Court, upon a proper showing, to grant "a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order," an order for the recovery and restitution of illegal rents may be considered a proper "other order" either (1) as an equitable adjunct to an injunction decree, or (2) as an order appropriate and necessary to enforce compliance with the Act. Pp. 399-400.
3. The legislative background of § 205(a) supports the conclusion that the traditional equity powers of a court remain unimpaired in a proceeding under that section so that an order of restitution may be made. P. 400.
4. The provision of § 205(e) authorizing an aggrieved tenant, and in certain circumstances the Price Administrator, to sue for damages does not conflict, except as to an award of damages, with the jurisdiction of equity courts under § 205(a) to issue whatever "other order" may be necessary to vindicate the public interest, to compel compliance with the Act, and to prevent and undo inflationary tendencies. Pp. 401-402.
5. In considering a restitution order where there are conflicting claims between tenants and landlord as to the amounts due, the District Court has inherent power to bring in all interested parties and settle the controversies or to retain the case until the matters are otherwise litigated. P. 403.
151 F.2d 529 reversed.
The Price Administrator brought suit under § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 to enjoin respondent from violating the Act and to require respondent to make restitution of rents collected in excess of maximums established by regulations issued under the Act. The District Court enjoined respondent from violating the Act, but denied a restitution order. 60 F.Supp. 513. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 151 F.2d 529. This Court granted certiorari. 327 U.S. 773. Reversed, p. 403.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946) in 328 U.S. 395 328 U.S. 396. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C6AT2NHTJLC8W35.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946), in 328 U.S. 395, page 328 U.S. 396. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C6AT2NHTJLC8W35.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946). cited in 1946, 328 U.S. 395, pp.328 U.S. 396. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C6AT2NHTJLC8W35.
|