KINNANE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,
v.
DETROIT CREAMERY COMPANY ET AL.; UNITED STATES V. SWARTZ; UNITED STATES V. SMITH
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed decisions striking down the fourth section of the Lever Act of 1919, which prohibited selling milk and potatoes at unjust and unreasonable prices, holding that the statute was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide a clear standard of criminality. The Court determined that the statute's prohibition on "unjust and unreasonable" prices was too indefinite to provide adequate notice of what conduct was criminal, rendering it repugnant to the Constitution.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
In the first of the above cases the Creamery Company and others, appellees, filed their bill in the court below against the United States Attorney and the members of the “Federal Fair Price Committee” for an injunction to restrain prosecutions against them for selling milk at alleged unjust and unreasonable rates or charges, in violation of the fourth section of the Lever Act, as reenacted in 1919, on the ground, among others, that the section was repugnant to the Constitution because of its vagueness and because it failed to provide a standard of criminality.
The United States Attorney, after challenging in his answer the right to restrain the performance by him of his official duties, admitted that in its advisory capacity the said price committee had fixed what it had deemed to be a fair price for the sale of milk and that he intended, in the discharge of his official duty, to act upon such advice as the basis for prosecutions where such price was exceeded, and, asserting the constitutionality of the section and the want of merit in the grounds upon which it was assailed, prayed the dismissal of the bill.
A temporary injunction issued and, the 'case having been submitted on the pleadings without proof, the court, stating that the sole question involved was whether the provision in question of § 4 of the Lever Act was constitutional, decided that it was not, because of its vagueness and uncertainty, and of the consequent absence from it of all standard of criminality. The enforcement of said provision was therefore permanently enjoined, and upon this appeal, the sole issue raised by the Government is whether the court erred in holding the provision of the statute in question to be void for repugnancy" to the Constitution. That it' did not so err, is fully established by the opinion this day announced in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, No. 324, ante, 81, and therefore it is our'duty to affirm,
The two other cases, Nos. 377 and 378, are likewise so controlled. Both were indictments for selling potatoes at prices which were alleged to be unjust and unreasonable in violation of - the reenacted fourth section of the Lever Act, and ip both cases the indictments were quashed because of the unconstitutionality of the section, upon the' grounds stated by the court, in the Creamery Case, No. 376, and they are both here at the instance of the Government because of alleged reversible error committed in'so doing. .It follows, for the reasons just stated and those expounded in-the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, that the action below in all three cases must be and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice' Brandéis concur in the result.
Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1927)…xas, 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 that not more than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work was. performed…
-
Morrison, JR. v. Work, 266 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1925)…lliams, 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; Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557; Regal Drug Co. v. Wardell, 260 U. S. 386; Chastleton Co…
-
Kincaid v. United States (W.D. La. 1929)…it Co., 254 U. S. 88, 41 S. Ct. 31, 65 L. Ed. 151, 10 A. L. R. 1548; Tedrow v. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co., 255 U. S. 98, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 524; Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100, 41 S. Ct. 303, 65 L. Ed. 528; Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co., 255 U. S. 102, 41 S. Ct. 304, 65 L. Ed. 531; Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 255 U. S. 104, 41 S. Ct. 305, 65 L. Ed. 532; Willard Co. v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 106, 41 S. Ct. 305, 65 L. Ed. 534; International R. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U. S. 506, 42 S. Ct. 179, 66 L. Ed. 341; Hi…1 / 2