319 U.S. 302 (1943), 840, United States v. Johnson
|Docket Nº:||No. 840|
|Citation:||319 U.S. 302, 63 S.Ct. 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413|
|Party Name:||United States v. Johnson|
|Case Date:||May 24, 1943|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued May 11, 12, 1943
[63 S.Ct. 1075] APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Upon the fact of this case, the District Court should have granted the Government's motion to dismiss the suit as collusive. P. 305.
48 F.Supp. 833, vacated.
APPEAL from the dismissal of a complaint in a suit in which the United States had intervened and in which the District Court held unconstitutional the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.
Per curiam opinion.
One Roach, a tenant of residential property belonging to appellee, brought this suit in the district court alleging that the property was within a "defense rental area" established by the Price Administrator pursuant to §§ 2(b) and 302(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23; that the Administrator had promulgated Maximum Rent Regulation No. 8 for the area, and that the rent paid by Roach and collected by appellee was in
excess of the maximum fixed by the regulation. The complaint demanded judgment for treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees, as prescribed by § 205(e) of the Act. The United States, intervening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 401, filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act, which appellee had challenged by motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground -- as appears from its opinion (48 F.Supp. 833) and judgment -- that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress, by the Act, had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Administrator.
[63 S.Ct. 1076] Before entry of the order dismissing the complaint, the Government moved to reopen the case on the ground that it was collusive, and did not involve a real case or controversy. This motion was denied. The Government brings the case here on appeal under § 2 of the Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 752, 28 U.S.C. § 349a, and assigns as error both the ruling of the district court on the constitutionality of the Act and its refusal to reopen and dismiss the case as collusive.
The appeal of the plaintiff Roach to this Court was also allowed by the district court, and is now pending. But...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP