KENNINGTON ET AL.
v.
PALMER ET AL.
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.
Clothing dealers in Jackson, Mississippi challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Lever Act and sought an injunction against their enforcement by the Attorney General. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law rather than granting equitable relief, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that constitutional challenges to statutes justify equitable relief and that the trial court erred in denying the injunction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants, dealers in wearing apparehin the city of Jackson, Mississippi, filed their bill in the court below against the Attorney General and subordinates charged by him with administrative duties under § 4 of the Lever Act to enjoin the enforcement against them of provisions of that section. Their right to relief was based upon averments as to the unconstitutionality of the assailed provisions of the section, not only, in substance, upon the contentions which we have this day considered and disposed of in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, ante, 81, but upon other grounds as well.
Without passing upon the question of constitutionality, the court dismissed the bill for the reason that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and the correctness of the decree of dismissal is the question now before us on direct appeal.
As it is no longer open to deny that the averments of unconstitutionality which were relied upon, if wel' founded, justified equitable relief under the bill,1 .anc because the opinion in the Cohen Case has conclusively' settled that they were well founded, -it follows that the court below was wrong and its décree must be and it is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.
Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251U. S. 146; Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264; Ft. Smith & Western R. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Vill. OF Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1926)
-
Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1925)
-
Hygrade Provision Co., Inc. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1925)…14. That these bills disclose such a case of threatened actual and imminent injury as to come within the exception is not beyond doubt. But upon a liberal view of the decisions above cited and other decisions of this Court (see Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100, and cases referred to in footnote), we accept the conclusion of the lower court, based on the decisions of this Court, that if the statutes under review are unconstitutional appellants are entitled to equitable relief; and pass to a consideration o…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1918)
- Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1917)
- Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1920)
- Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1917)
- Fort Smith & W. R.R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1920)