COUNTRY GARDEN MARKET, INC.,
v.
BOWLES, ADMINISTRATOR OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION

D.C. Cir. | 1944-03-06
No. 8693
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
141 F.2d 540 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1944) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the Office of Price Administration had the authority to issue the suspension order based on substantial evidence and sufficient notice.


Facts & Procedural History

The Office of Price Administration issued an order prohibiting the plaintiff from selling certain foods for fifteen days after a hearing found violati…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant as Administrator of the Office of Price Administration entered an order prohibiting the plaintiff from receiving for sale or selling certain foods for a period of fifteen days. Plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the enforcement of this order. The order was entered after a hearing conducted to ascertain whether plaintiff had violated rationing orders pertaining to its sale of meat. The Hearing Commissioner found that plaintiff had violated Rationing Order No. 16 by selling or offering to sell at reduced point value meat which was not in imminent danger of spoiling, by not posting a sign which complied with the regulation, and by not acting in good faith as required by the regulation.

The principal points raised in this appeal are as follows:

(1) That there is no substantial evidence which justifies the findings and issuance of the suspension order;

(2) That the notice of the hearing before the Special Hearing Commissioner did not apprise appellant sufficiently to enable appellant to prepare a defense;

(3) That the Office of Price Administration has no authority to set up administrative courts and to issue suspension orders;

(4) That the suspension order is a penalty, the imposition of which is beyond the authority delegated to the Office of Price Administration;

(5) That the powers delegated to the Office of Price Administration constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. All the points raised, except (1) and (2) supra, which relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and notice of the hearing, were decided adversely to appellant’s contentions by this court in the case of Steuart & Bro. v. Bowles, Administrator, 1944, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 140 F. 2d 703.

The trial court found that there was substantial evidence to justify a finding of violation of the rationing orders. The record amply justifies that finding. There is no merit in appellant’s contention that the notice of hearing was not sufficient.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw