H. ROUW COMPANY
v.
CRIVELLA
H. ROUW COMPANY
CRIVELLA
310 U.S. 612
Supreme Court of the United States (1940)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
In the light of Public, No. 515, 76th Congress, Third Session, approved May 14,1940, and, it appearing that it was the intention of the Congress to make that Act applicable to the present case, and to other cases similarly situated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to hear the appeal from the award of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Messrs. William L. Curtis and D. H. Howell submitted for petitioner. Messrs. Harry P. Daily and John P. Wood submitted for respondent.
By leave of Court, Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Robert K. McConnaughey, Mastin G. White, and Joseph 0. Parker filed a brief on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wayne Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1942)…ntention, the amendment is not retrospective in terms. Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 478; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160. Nor does it appear that Congress had the instant case in mind in enacting the amendment. H. Rouw Co. v. Crivella, 310 U. S. 612. We therefore view the right to appeal and the court to which an appeal lies as they existed at the time the appeal was taken. Gwin v. United States, 184 U. S. 669, 674. Dismissed. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration of these app…