Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Porter v. Rushing

157 F.2d 263

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-09-09
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. The court on its own motion dismissed the complaint of the Administrator in two counts charging violation by the appellee of the provisions of the Rent Regulations for Housing (8 F.R. 7322), issued pursuant to § 201(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. A.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Porter v. Rushing. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
PORTER v. RUSHING,157 F.2d 263(8th Cir. 1946)
PORTER, Price Administrator, v. RUSHING.
No. 13383.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
September 9, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas; John E. Miller, Judge.

Action by the predecessor in office of Paul A. Porter, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, against Mrs. Virginia Rushing, to recover damages for alleged overcharges of rent by defendant, and for an injunction. From a judgment dismissing the complaint,65 F. Supp. 759, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded for trial on the merits.
George Moncharsh, Deputy Administrator for Enforcement, David London, Director, Litigation Division, Albert M. Dreyer, Chief, Appellate Branch, and Nathan Siegel, Sp. Appellate Atty., all of Washington, D.C., Robert F. Proctor, Regional Litigation Atty., of Dallas, Tex., and Charles T. Pearson, District Enforcement Atty., Office of Price Administration, of Fayetteville, Ark., for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.
Before SANBORN, THOMAS, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The court on its own motion dismissed the complaint of the Administrator in two counts charging violation by the appellee of the provisions of the Rent Regulations for Housing (8 F.R. 7322), issued pursuant to § 201(d) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended,56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 921(d), and praying for judgment for damages, penalty and an injunction. The judgment was entered on the ground that the maxim de minimis non curat lex and the fair and honest administration of the law required the dismissal. Since the courts are not vested with discretion either to deny enforcement of or to withhold the statutory remedies provided by Congress, Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 8 Cir.,146 F.2d 325; Porter v. McRae, 10 Cir.,155 F.2d 213, the case should not have been dismissed. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.Page 263