FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
v.
THE DARLINGTON, INC.
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
THE DARLINGTON, INC.
352 U.S. 977
Supreme Court of the United States (1957)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
Probable jurisdiction is noted. In view of the refusal of the appellant to approve rental schedules for furnished apartments in appellee’s apartment project unless appellee agrees not to rent apartments for periods of less than 30 days, a cause of action for injunctive relief is stated. An injunction restraining enforcement of an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution cannot, however, be granted by any District Court unless the application is heard and determined by a three-judge District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 2282. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded for consideration by a three-judge District Court.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Melvin Richter and Herman Marcuse for appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1960)…he inapplicability of § 2282. If the provision applies, we cannot reach the merits, but must vacate the judgment below and remand the case for consideration by a three-judge District Court. See Federal Housing Administration v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U. S. 977. Under the decisions of this Court, this § 205 (g) action could, and did, draw in question the constitutionality of § 202 (n). See, e. g., Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 337, 345-346. However, the action did no more. It did not seek affirmat…
-
Fed. Hous. Admin. v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1958)…insurance, it is entitled to rent to transients. The District Court gave appellee substantially the relief which it demanded. 142 F. Supp. 341. On appeal, we remanded the cause for consideration by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2282. 352 U. S. 977. On the remand a three-judge court adopted the earlier findings and conclusions of the single judge, 154 F. Supp. 411, attaching however certain conditions to the decree unnecessary to discuss here. It held that rental to transients was not barred b…
-
Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1976)…f a three-judge court was originally required under 28 U. S. C. § 2282, we ordinarily were bound to vacate the judgment and remand for the convening of a three-judge court. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 607 (1960); FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U. S. 977 (1957). Concluding, however, that no purpose could be served by deciding whether a three-judge court was required originally, because intervening decisions of this Court sustaining the constitutionality of Art. 134 had rendered the merits issue plai…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence