97 search results for query *

Summary: 208 F.2d 180 SMITH v. SHERRARD. 9 Since, on protest, the Director must consider the issues de novo, Dargel v. Barr, Em.App., 204 F.2d 697, these provisions afforded complainant an opportunity for an oral hearing at both the initial and protest stages, conditioned upon his showing that the proceeding could not be expedited on the consideration of written evidence alone. See, Reines v. Woods, Em.App., 192 F.2d 83; Abbet Holding Corporation v. Woods, Em.App., 167 F.2d 472; Polis v. Creedon, more.

Summary: 193 F.2d 181 FAST et al. v. DI SALLE, Director of Price Stabilization. See Collins v. Bowles, Em.App.1946, 152 F.2d 760, 761-762; Conklin Pen Co. v. Bowles, Em.App.1946, 152 F.2d 764, 765-766; Van der Loo v. Porter, Em.App.1946, 160 F.2d 110, 112 — cases dealing with the corresponding provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. 10 This court, and the Supreme Court upon review of our judgments on certiorari, as provided in § 408(d) of the Defense more.

Summary: 137 F.2d 654 (1943) TAYLOR v. BROWN, Price Adm'r. No. 10. His property is situated in the San Francisco Bay Defense-Rental Area with respect to which the Price Administrator established maximum rents, effective July 1, 1942, by Maximum Rent Regulation No. 28 issued June 30, 1942.Commission, 3 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 747. In Wilson v. Brown, Em.App., 137 F.2d 348, decided today, we have fully discussed this contention and held it to be untenable. See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Tennessee Electric more.

Summary: 193 F.2d 1017 STARKEY v. DIRECTORS OF RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. 23, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 901-946, which is divided into two parts; he complains in one respect because respondent invalidated in toto his subsidy claims for April and the first half of May 1945, and in the other, because respondent required a recomputation of all other claims for the reason that, as initially filed, they failed to classify the cattle slaughtered as "feeders." See Evergreen Meat Co. v. R. F. C., Em.App., 1951, more.

Summary: 202 F.2d 429 HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP. v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. See Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Em.App.1952, 196 F.2d 738. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation found that excess costs for twenty-five of these lots were due to extenuating circumstances resulting from delayed shipments because of a railroad strike, but denied subsidies for the other ten lots on the ground that no such extenuating circumstances affected them.

Summary: 191 F.2d 862 AMODIO v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. 1 The complaint in this case was filed on July 11, 1951 by the complainant, a slaughterer of cattle, seeking review by this court of orders of the respondent invalidating claims of the complainant for livestock slaughter subsidy payments under Regulation No. 3 and Revised Regulation No. 3 of Defense Supplies Corporation and its successor, Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Merchants Packing Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Em.

Summary: 222 F.2d 721 SILVER PINE OIL COMPANY, Complainant, v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. 12 The Silver Pine Oil Company made claim for the subsidies in this case, as the purchaser of the oil at the highest posted purchase price for the pool; it received the subsidies from the government; it insists that it is entitled to them; and it contends that the order of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation invalidating them and requiring them to be refunded is arbitrary, capricious, and more.

Summary: 137 F.2d 669 (1943) SPAETH v. BROWN, Price Adm'r. No. 20. Bank v. Brown, Em.App., May 7, 1943, 137 F.2d 228. In the second place the act contemplates that rent regulations shall be generally fair and equitable; it does not require that they assure a fair return to each individual landlord, Wilson v. Brown, Em.App., July 15, 1943, 137 F.2d 348, or that they maintain his relative purchasing power. Maximum Rent Regulation No. 16 was also before us in Lakemore Co. v. Brown, Em.App., July 15, 1943, more.

Summary: 196 F.2d 738 HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP. v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. 1947, 162 F.2d 918; Federated Meat Corp. v. Fleming, Em.App.1947, 159 F.2d 725, on jurisdiction of the court, and history and operation of the Cattle Stabilization Program, with relation to subsidy payments 2 Maximum Price Regulation 574 (10 F. R. 1270) 3 See Amendment 15 to Revised Regulation No. 3, issued pursuant to Amendment No. 3 (11 F.R. 3102), to Directive 41 of the Director, Office of Economic Stabilization 4 For more.

Summary: 215 F.2d 653 Gilbert C. KERSHAW, William N. Stobo, George E. Phelps, Frank L. Laffee, Emmons K. Berry, Paul W. Swift, George W. Thompson, Bonnie W. Bacon, David B. Barker, Eugene L. Lounsbury, Stanley J. Kowalczyk, Albert G. Kenney and Nildo B. Sartori v. Charles H. KENDALL, Assistant Director, Office of Defense Mobilization. Hubert B. KLOSTERMAN, Roy S. MacDougal, Leslie R. Ladd, Floyd H. Bennett, John Marshak, Everett H. Pert, and A. Clayton Longfellow v. Charles H. KENDALL, Assistant more.

Summary: 140 F.2d 316 (1943) MADISON PARK CORPORATION v. BOWLES, Price Adm'r, and seven other cases. In these cases, eight owners of rental properties in Seattle, Washington, complain against Maximum Rent Regulation No. 20 (redesignated Rent Regulation for Housing, 8 F. R. 7322, June 1, 1943), issued by the Price Administrator pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. Subsection 2(a) deals with commodities and provides that "whenever in the judgment of the Price Administrator * * * the price more.

Summary: 179 F.2d 965 FLOUR MILLS OF AMERICA, Inc. v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION et al. 1 This case has to do with a claim of Flour Mills of America, Inc., to certain additional subsidy payments under Regulation 4 — Flour Production Payments, issued by Defense Supplies Corporation November 29, 1943, effective the next day. If the applicant has registered forward sales of flour in accordance with § 7004.7 of this regulation, and has forward sales of flour booked at the beginning of the month, the more.

Summary: 183 F.2d 588 FEDERATED MEAT CORPORATION v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. UNITED MEAT CO., Inc., v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. The respondent Reconstruction Finance Corporation succeeded on July 1, 19454 to the functions of Defense Supplies Corporation in the subsidy program. Notes: 1 10 F.R. 4241, issued April 9, 1945, effective January 19, 1945 2 The second clause of Section 7003.10(a) of Revised Livestock Slaughter Payments Regulation No. 3, 10 F.R. 8073, as amended and in more.

Summary: 197 F.2d 877 PENN ABATTOIR CO. v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. See, e. g., Evergreen Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Em.App.1951, 188 F.2d 368 2 11 F.R. 7042, 7043 3 10 F.R. 4243 4 10 F.R. 8073 5 Directive of October 25, 1943, Para. 3, 8 F.R. 14642 6 11 F.R. 3102

Summary: 210 F.2d 283 NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS, Inc. et al. v. KENDALL. 1 Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., and two of its weighmasters were indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, on the charge of unlawfully buying and receiving a truckload of steel scrap, and paying therefor a price in excess of the ceiling price established by the regulations of the Office of Price Stabilization. During the period of the alleged unlawful conduct, more.

Summary: 194 F.2d 290 MIRMAN et al. v. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. 1 This cause involves claims for meat subsidy payments arising under the subsidy program created and administered pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. 2 Complainant partnership is composed of William B. Mirman, Carl Mirman, Harry Mirman and Ernest Falb. Its essence is thus stated: "Subject slaughterer not only disputes the amount of and reason for the Claim Receivable of the more.

Summary: 99 F.3d 1150 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. 7 Plaintiff contends that Barnes violated Pearson's substantive due process rights by recklessly creating the danger that resulted in his death.2 This court acknowledged in Medina v. City & more.

Summary: 162 F.2d 206 (1947) 150 EAST 47TH STREET CORPORATION v. CREEDON. 639, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 924(e) (1), in which we are asked to enter judgment declaring invalid ab initio an order issued by the Rent Director of the New York City Defense-Rental Area on March 27, 1946, decreasing the maximum rent for apartment 3-C at 150 East 47th Street from $85 to $67.50 per month effective retroactively as of October 1, 1945, and directing all rent in excess of $67.50 per month collected since October 1, more.