Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mitchell Vs. Penny Stores

Mitchell vs Penny Stores

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1931
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
284 U.S. 576
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mitchell

Respondent

Penny Stores

Excerpt

mitchell v. penny stores - 284 u.s. 576 (1931) u.s. supreme court mitchell v. penny stores, 284 u.s. 576 (1931) 284 u.s. 576 george t. mitchell, attorney general of the state of mississippi, et al., etc., appellants, v. penny stores, incorporated. no. 5. supreme court of the united states october 26, 1931 per curiam. in this suit, brought to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of sections (2-c), 11, and 13 of article 1 of chapter 90 of the laws of mississippi of 1930, an application was made to the district court of the united states for an interlocutory injunction. the district court, composed of three judges (u. s. c., title 28, 380 (28 usca 380)), granted an interlocutory injunction upon the giving by the plaintiffs of a bond payable to the state of mississippi in the sum of $5,000, conditioned as required by law, restraining the enforcement of the statutory provisions until the cause could be fully heard and determined. no opinion was rendered by the district court, and the only question presented by the record upon this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting an injunction until the case could be heard upon the merits. alabama et al. v. united states, 279 u.s. 229, 231 , 49 s. ct. 266; united fuel gas co. v. public service commission, 278 u.s. 322, 326 , 49 s. ct. 157; national fire insurance co. v. 288. u. s. 331, 338, 50 s. ct. 288. the page 284 u.s. 576, 577 order was made prior to the decision of this court in state board of commissioners v. jackson, 283 u.s. 527 , 51 s. ct. 540, 73 a. l. r. 1464, and, as no abuse of discretion is shown, the order must be affirmed. messrs. j. a. lauderdale, of jackson, miss., and w. lee guice, of biloxi, miss., for appellants. mr. william h. walters, of phillipsburg, n. j., for appellee.

Full Judgment

MITCHELL v. PENNY STORES - 284 U.S. 576 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court MITCHELL v. PENNY STORES, 284 U.S. 576 (1931)

284 U.S. 576

George T. MITCHELL, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, et al., etc., appellants,
v.
PENNY STORES, Incorporated.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 26, 1931

PER CURIAM.

In this suit, brought to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of sections (2-c), 11, and 13 of article 1 of chapter 90 of the Laws of Mississippi of 1930, an application was made to the District Court of the United States for an interlocutory injunction. The District Court, composed of three judges (U. S. C., title 28, 380 (28 USCA 380)), granted an interlocutory injunction upon the giving by the plaintiffs of a bond payable to the State of Mississippi in the sum of $5,000, conditioned as required by law, restraining the enforcement of the statutory provisions until the cause could be fully heard and determined. No opinion was rendered by the District Court, and the only question presented by the record upon this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in granting an injunction until the case could be heard upon the merits. Alabama et al. v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231 , 49 S. Ct. 266; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 278 U.S. 322, 326 , 49 S. Ct. 157; National Fire Insurance Co. v. 288. U. S. 331, 338, 50 S. Ct. 288. The

Page 284 U.S. 576, 577

order was made prior to the decision of this Court in State Board of Commissioners v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 , 51 S. Ct. 540, 73 A. L. R. 1464, and, as no abuse of discretion is shown, the order must be affirmed.

Messrs. J. A. Lauderdale, of Jackson, Miss., and W. Lee Guice, of Biloxi, Miss., for appellants.

Mr. William H. Walters, of Phillipsburg, N. J., for appellee.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial