G. S. WILLARD COMPANY ET AL.
v.
PALMER, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 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.
G. S. Willard Company sought to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing provisions of the fourth section of the Lever Act, arguing that those provisions were unconstitutionally vague and lacked a proper constitutional standard. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, applying the same constitutional vagueness principles it had established that same day in Cohen Grocery Co. v. United States.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the. court.
In this cáse the complainants filed their bill to enjoin the Attorney General and the United States Attorney from taking steps to enforce against them provisions of the fourth section of the Lever Act, on the ground, among others, of their repugnancy to the Constitution-of the United States because of their vagueness and want of constitutional standard. On motion, the court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case is here by direct appeál.
It presents the question under the Constitution which was this day decided in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, ante, 81, that is, the repugnancy of the provisions relied upon to the Constitution, and therefore, as a result of the ruling in that case, the decree below must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity, with this opinion and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
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
-
Morrison, JR. v. Work, 266 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1925)…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 Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U. S. 543. Noble v. Union River Logging R. R. Co., 147 U.…
-
Kincaid v. United States (W.D. La. 1929)…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; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 42 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822; Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557, 42 S. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed. 1061; Regal Drug Co.…1 / 3