TEDROW, AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO,
v.
A. T. LEWIS & SON DRY GOODS COMPANY ET AL.

U.S. | 1921-02-28
No. 357
Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result., Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
255 U.S. 98 Supreme Court of the United States (1921) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 65 L. Ed. 524 · 41 S. Ct. 303 · SCDB 1920-162 · 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1796
Cited by 20 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.

Synopsis

Clothing dealers in Denver challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 of the Lever Act, which authorized the prosecution of those charging "unreasonable" prices for wearing apparel, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and lacked sufficient standards. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision striking down the statute as void for uncertainty and want of standard, holding that Congress had exceeded its authority by delegating without adequate guidance what constitutes an unlawful price.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

Various dealers in wearing apparel in the City of Denver filed their bill to enjoin the United States Attorney from instituting prosecution^ against them under § 4 of the Lever Act on the ground that Congress had no power to adopt that section because a state of peace prevailed, or, if a state of war existed, the regulation of the price for which wearing apparel should be sold was beyond the authority of Congress, and for the further reason that the section in question was void for repugnancy to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution because of its vagueness, want of standard, and denial of the equal protection of the laws. The case was submitted on bill and answer and the statute was held void because of its uncertainty and want of standard, and its enforcement was enjoined.

That-the court was right in this ruling, which is the subject now before us upon direct appeal brought by the Government, is not open in view of the decision this day in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, ante, >81, and, for the reasons stated in that case, it is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1927)
    …34; American Seeding Machine Company v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660; Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas, 212. U. S. 86; Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426; Tedrow v. Lewis & Son. Co., 255 U. S. 98; Weeds, Inc. v. United-States, 255 U. S. 109, and Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co., 255 U. S. 102. In the latest of the foregoing cases, Connolly v. General Construction Company, 269 U. S. 385, 391, the validity óf a statute of Oklahoma providing th…
  • Morrison, JR. v. Work, 266 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1925)
    …6 U. S. 606; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251; First National Bank of Canton v. Williams, 252 U. S. 504; Fort Smith & Western R. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206; Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 254 U. S. 88; Tedrow v. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co., 255 U. S. 98; Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100; Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co., 255 U. S. 102; Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 255 U. S. 104; Willard & Co. v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 106; International Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44; Lip…
  • Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Millers' Nat. Fed'n, 23 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1927)
    …dience is a condition precedent to the right to test the validity of the act. [2] The jurisdiction of a court of equity to grant injunction in such-cases, even before indictment, is upheld in Tedrow, United States District Attorney, v. Lewis & Son, 255 U. S. 98, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 524. The threatened criminal proceedings in that case were under the Lever Law, and the proceeding in equity to restrain the threatened prosecutions on the ground of the uneonstitutionality of the statute. It would seem tha…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw