Shadid v. Fleming
| Decision Date | 14 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 3384.,3384. |
| Citation | 160 F.2d 752 |
| Parties | SHADID v. FLEMING. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John B. Ogden, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Stanley B. Frosh, Atty., Office of Temporary Controls, OPA, of Washington, D. C. William E. Remy, Deputy Com'r of Price Administration for Enforcement; David London, Director, Litigation Division; and Albert M. Dreyer, Chief, Appellate Branch, all of Washington, D. C., and Frank E. Hickey, Regional Litigation Atty., Office of Temporary Controls, OPA, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
By complaint filed in the United States Court for Western Oklahoma, the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration sought an injunction against H. B. Shadid, owner and operator of a retail grocery and market in Oklahoma City, to restrain the sale of groceries and commodities at prices in excess of Maximum Price Regulation 423, and of Order G-15 under General Order 51, promulgated under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 56 Stat. 23, 58 Stat. 632, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. By answer, the defendant denied the violations charged in the complaint and pleaded compliance with all applicable regulations. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, and on final hearing the injunction was made permanent. The appeal was from the final judgment awarding the permanent injunction.
Appellant urges one contention. It is that at the time of the entry of the final judgment he was fully complying with the price regulations having application to his business and therefore the court should have denied a permanent injunction. The stock of merchandise in the grocery and market consisted of between 2000 and 3000 different kinds of commodities. Investigators of the Administrator made a spot check of slightly more than 200 items in the stock. The check disclosed that 18 or 20 of the commodities checked were being sold at prices above the permitted ceilings. The suit was filed. Corrections were made in the prices which eliminated the excesses pointed out by the check. Though no findings of fact were made, the court stated in the course of the final hearing on the question of the issuance of the permanent injunction that it believed appellant was then doing everything reasonably possible to comply with the regulations. That statement may be treated as a finding of compliance with the regulations at that time. But section 205(a) of the Act authorizes the issuance of an injunction upon a showing that the defendant has engaged or is about to engage in acts or practices constituting a violation of the Act. And where an injunction is authorized by statute it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories
...FTC v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., 191 F.2d 744, 747 (7th Cir. 1951), rev'd in part on other grounds, 348 U.S. 940 (1955); Shadid v. Fleming, 160 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir. 1947); Henderson v. Burd, 133 F.2d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 1943); United States v. Generix Drug Corp., supra, at 293; United States ......
-
US v. 22 Rectangular or Cylindrical Devices
...remedy at law. It is enough if the requirements of the statute are satisfied. Lennen, 640 F.2d at 260 (quoting Shadid v. Fleming, 160 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1947)). Here, it is sufficient to warrant an injunction under section 332(a) if it is established that the defendants violated sectio......
-
United States v. Stoeco Homes, Inc.
...Act of 1933); Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 146 F.2d 325 (8th Cir. 1945) (the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938); Shadid v. Fleming, 160 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1947) (the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942); Shafer v. United States, 229 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1956) (the Agricultural Adjust......
-
United States v. Cleveland
...F.2d 255, 260 (10th Cir. 1981) ; Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam's East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639, 651-52 (10th Cir. 2004) ; Shadid v. Fleming, 160 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir. 1947) ). Other federal district courts have similarly concluded that a Tribe or Tribal organization does not need to demonstrate......