Lee v. Roseberry, 11486.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11486.,11486. |
| Citation | 200 F.2d 155 |
| Parties | LEE v. ROSEBERRY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., on brief, for appellant.
Neil Brooks, Washington, D. C., Neil Brooks, John C. Bagwell and Richard C. Johnson, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Claude P. Stephens, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief, for appellees.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and HICKS and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
When the above action was commenced, appellant sought an injunction against the members of the State Production and Marketing Administration restraining the enforcement of certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as administered by such committee, as well as a review of the validity of a certain Burley tobacco acreage allotment, and a declaratory judgment determining her rights under the statute. Because of the injunctive relief sought, the Chief Judge of the circuit, in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sections 2282 and 2284, appointed a district court of three judges to hear and determine the proceeding. Upon the hearing and presentation of arguments, the three-judge court held that appellant, by the statute, was restricted to proceeding against the Review Committee provided for by the Act; that since, in the language of the statute, Title 7 U.S.C.A. Section 1367, "No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to pass upon the legal validity of any such determination except in a proceeding under this Part", any other attempts to by-pass the statute through declaratory judgment proceedings and application for injunctive relief were not authorized. The court determined that the statute provided the exclusive method of attack on the validity of the allotment; that the jurisdiction of the district court in providing the forum was not its general jurisdiction but a limited one; and that, in such a special statutory proceeding, the constitutionality of the statute involved could be questioned and adjudicated. Accordingly, the three-judge court concluded that Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sections 2282 and 2284, under which such a court is designated, deals only with a proceeding in which an injunction is applied for to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress; and that the case before it, in its status at that time, was not of such a character. Although the validity of an Act of Congress was drawn into question, the court said there was no such application for an injunction as was the necessary prerequisite for a hearing before a statutory three-judge court. Accordingly, the three judges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thoms v. Heffernan, 98
...court's decision must be directly to the Supreme Court and we would be without jurisdiction to hear it. 28 U.S.C. § 1253; Lee v. Roseberry, 200 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1952). If, however, we construe the district court's "forbearance" in granting injunctive relief as merely a postponement of dec......
-
Briscoe v. Levi, 75-1903
...appeal then lies directly to the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1253 (1970); Oldroyd v. Kugler, 461 F.2d 535 (3d Cir.1972); Lee v. Roseberry, 200 F.2d 155 (6th Cir.1952); Jackson v. Cravens, 238 F. 117 (5th Cir.1916).30 401 U.S. at 44, 91 S.Ct. at 750, 27 L.Ed.2d at 675.31 The only reference to......
-
Hawkins v. STATE AGRICULTURE STAB. AND CON. COM.
...131; N. L. R. B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 840, 845; Lee v. Roseberry, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 324, 327, affirmed 200 F.2d 155; United States v. Stangland, D.C., 137 F.Supp. ...
-
Corpstein v. United States, 5923
...242 F.2d 392, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 833, 78 S.Ct. 48, 2 L.Ed.2d 44; United States v. Stangland, 7 Cir., 242 F. 2d 843; Lee v. Roseberry, 6 Cir., 200 F. 2d 155; Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 184; United States v. Lillard, D.C.W.D.Mo., 143 F.Supp. Affirmed. 1 In Wickar......