|
|
Collins v. Porter, 328 U.S. 46 (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.
Collins v. Porter, 328 U.S. 46 (1946)
Collins v. Porter No. 393 Argued February 26, 1946 Decided April 22, 1946 328 U.S. 46
CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEAL
Syllabus
1. The decision of this case on the merits is governed by Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, ante p. 39. P. 49.
2. While a suit for treble damages under § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act was pending in the District Court against petitioners, they filed with the Price Administrator a protest under 203(a) seeking to have the regulation on which the enforcement proceeding was based declared invalid or inapplicable. The protest was dismissed by the Price Administrator, and petitioners’ ensuing complaint in the Emergency Court of Appeals was dismissed by that court without opinion. Upon a complaint filed by leave of the District Court under § 204(e) of the Act, the Emergency Court of Appeals sustained the validity of the regulation but refused to pass on its applicability to petitioners. Held that the judgment of the Emergency Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in the protest proceeding under § 203(a) was not rendered moot by its judgment sustaining the validity of the regulation in the proceeding under § 204(e). P. 48.
3. The fact that Congress, by the 1944 amendment of the Emergency Price Control Act, granted a limited opportunity for review of a regulation by the Emergency Court of Appeals by leave of a district court in which an enforcement proceeding is pending, neither repealed nor qualified the protest proceeding originally authorized by § 203(a). The two methods of securing a hearing on the validity and applicability of a price regulation are cumulative, and not alternative. P. 49.
4. A person against whom a treble damage suit for violation of a regulation under the Emergency Price Control Act is pending, is a "person subject to . . . such regulation" within the meaning of § 203(a) of the Act, although the regulation has since been revoked or superseded. United States v. Hark, 320 U.S. 531. P. 49.
Reversed.
Petitioners filed with the Price Administrator a protest under the Emergency Price Control Act. The Price Administrator denied the protest. The Emergency Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ complaint. This Court granted certiorari. 326 U.S. 710. Reversed, p. 49.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Collins v. Porter, 328 U.S. 46 (1946) in 328 U.S. 46 328 U.S. 47. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JFQPTLSSTULGIRE.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Collins v. Porter, 328 U.S. 46 (1946), in 328 U.S. 46, page 328 U.S. 47. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JFQPTLSSTULGIRE.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Collins v. Porter, 328 U.S. 46 (1946). cited in 1946, 328 U.S. 46, pp.328 U.S. 47. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JFQPTLSSTULGIRE.
|