Kroger Grocery Baking Co v. Lutz, 501
| Decision Date | 21 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 501,501 |
| Citation | 299 U.S. 300,81 L.Ed. 251,57 S.Ct. 215 |
| Parties | KROGER GROCERY & BAKING CO. v. LUTZ, Atty. Gen., of State of Indiana, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Indiana.
Messrs. Robert S. Marx and Frank E. Wood, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Complainant brought this suit to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Milk Control Board of the State of Indiana, made June 12, 1936, fixing selling prices of milk in the Fort Wayne Marketing Area. Upon the hearing by three judges (28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380)) of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court dismissed the cause for the want of jurisdiction upon the ground that the requisite jurisdictional amount was not involved. The court made the following findings:
'2. That complainant owns and operates a chain of grocery stores in and out of Indiana, forty-four (44) of which are located in the City of Fort Wayne, and within a radius of seven (7) Miles thereof, and has invested in said stores in said Fort Wayne marketing area approximately Four Hunderd Fifty Thousand ($450,000.00) Dollars, making an annual sales of approximately Two Million ($2,000,000.00) Dollars, of which said sales milk and dairy products amount to approximately Forty-five thousand ($45,000.00) Dollars. That the number of quarts of milk sold by said stores in one year period are less than 550,000 in said area, in that complainant's profits per quart on its milk sold are .00398. That complainant's total loss in profits for a one-year period on a complete loss of its milk business would be Two Thousand Eighty-nine ($2089.00) Dollars, on the basis of 550,000 quarts. That if complainant be required by Official Order No. 14 of the Milk Control Board of Indiana to sell its milk at a level price with other dairies and distributors in said territory, its loss in the sales of milk would not exceed twenty-five percent, and its loss in profits would not exceed Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.
In granting a temporary stay pending appeal to this Court, the District Court found that the enforcement of the order would 'cause immediate and irreparable injury to the business of the complainant.'
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. Buck
...when a right of complainant is regulated, or where he is required to take affirmative action. Cf., Kroger Gro. Co. v. Lutz, 299 U.S. 300, 301, 57 S.Ct. 215, 81 L.Ed. 251; McNutt v. General Motors Etc. Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 181, 56 S.Ct. 780, 781, 80 L.Ed. 1135. But appellees have not been re......
-
Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, Civil Action No. 10787.
...304 U.S. 252, 254, 58 S.Ct. 865, 82 L.Ed. 1323 (dismissal for want of a substantial federal question); Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Lutz, 299 U.S. 300, 57 S.Ct. 215, 81 L.Ed. 251 (affirming dismissal for want of requisite jurisdictional amount); Connor v. Rivers, D. C.N.D.Ga., 25 F.Supp. ......
-
Eisen v. Eastman
...orders. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Lutz, 299 U.S. 300, 57 S.Ct. 215, 81 L.Ed. 251 (1936). The capitalized amount of the rent reductions was clearly in excess of $10,000. We therefore turn to the......
-
Cardinal Sporting Goods Company v. Eagleton
...against unconstitutional interference; measured by the loss which would result from enforcement. Kroger Grocery and Baking Company v. Lutz, 299 U.S. 300, 57 S.Ct. 215, 81 L.Ed. 251 (1936); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). One of t......