OGLESBY GROCERY COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1921-02-28
No. 457
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.
255 U.S. 108 Supreme Court of the United States (1921) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 65 L. Ed. 535 · 41 S. Ct. 306 · SCDB 1920-167 · 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1801
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

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

The plaintiff in error is here to reverse a verdict and. sentence against it on an indictment containing four counts charging it with four separate violations of the fourth section of the Lever Act. At the close of all the testimony it requested the court to charge the jury that the provisions of that section relied upon were repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, on the grounds, among others, which were held to be sound in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, this day decided, ante, 81.

It is therefore unnecessary for us to do more than to apply to this case the rulings made in the Cohen Case, and, in consequence of doing so, to reverse the judgment with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indictment, and it is so ordered.

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • The State of Fla. ex rel. Harlis Sellers v. Parker, 87 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1924)
    …an ascertainable standard of guilt and is not adequate to inform the accused “of the nature and cause' of the accusation against him,” citing United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81. See also Weeds, Inc. v. United States, 255 U. S. 109, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306. While the mere provision making it a criminal offense “to exact excessive prices for any necessaries” or “to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries,” may properly be held to deny due proces…
  • Frischer & Co., Inc. v. Bakelite Corp., 39 F.2d 247 (C.C.P.A. 1930)
    …ble in the ease at bar than is the reasoning in the Hampton Case. Reference is had particularly to United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 41 S. Ct. 298, 300, 65 L. Ed. 516, 14 A. L. R. 1045; Weeds, Inc. v. United States, 255 U. S. 109, 41 S. Ct. 306, 65 L. Ed. 537; and Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Refining Co., 267 U. S. 233, 45 S. Ct. 295, 297, 69 L. Ed. 589. In those cases certain language of the Food Control Act of August 10, 1917 (40 Stat. 276), as amended October 22, 1919 (41 Stat. 297), common…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw