Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bowles Vs. Willingham

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 1944

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

72 entries 6 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Mckay Vs. Kalyton US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1907
  2. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. Vs. Administrator US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1941
  3. Welch Vs. Swasey US Supreme Court · May 17, 1909
  4. West Coast Hotel Co. Vs. Parrish US Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1937
  5. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. Vs. Adkins US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  6. Jacob Ruppert Vs. Caffey US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1920
  7. U.S. 503 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Bowles v. Willingham
    Search
  8. U.S. 503 (1944) Bowles v. Willingham
    Search
  9. rents for housing accommodations in defense rental areas, Congress did not delegate its legislative power. Yakus v. United
    Search
  10. any orders in the state proceedings. The District Court, 51 F.Supp. 597, in reliance on its earlier ruling in Payne v. Griffin
    Search
  11. and the exceptions which have been engrafted on it. Toucey v. New
    Search
  12. As Page 321 U. S. 511 we recently held in Lockerty v. Philips
    Search
  13. which is designed to avoid collisions between state and federal authorities ( Toucey v. New
    Search
  14. they should exercise that jurisdiction concurrently with the courts of the States. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson
    Search
  15. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 71 U. S. 428 -430. And see Tennessee v. Davis
    Search
  16. raises issues related to those considered in Yakus v. United
    Search
  17. c). The considerations which support the delegation of authority under this Act over commodity prices ( Yakus v. United
    Search
  18. Those steps constitute the performance of the legislative function in the constitutional sense. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator
    Search
  19. not more vague than the standards governing the determination by the Secretary of Agriculture in United States v. Rock
    Search
  20. the standards which its administrative agency is to apply raises large issues of policy. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  21. a). We fail to see how more Page 321 U. S. 516 could be required ( Taylor v. Brown
    Search
  22. the exact rentals which Mrs. Willingham might exact. As we have pointed out and as more fully developed in Yakus v. United
    Search
  23. Act will be applied and the weight to be accorded various statutory criteria on given facts. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator
    Search
  24. Yakus v. United
    Search
  25. of authority is concerned, the rent control provisions of the Act, like the price control provisions ( Yakus v. United
    Search
  26. control of rents in the District of Columbia provided machinery for securing to a landlord a reasonable rental. Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  27. U. S. 135 , 256 U. S. 157 . And see Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel
    Search
  28. rates which are just and reasonable in their application to particular persons or companies. Federal Power Commission v. Hope
    Search
  29. to fix rents, landlord by landlord, as in the fashion of utility rates, would have been quite impossible. Wilson v. Brown
    Search
  30. Such considerations of feasibility and practicality are certainly germane to the constitutional issue. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey
    Search
  31. of property. Wilson v. Brown
    Search
  32. does not mean that the regulation is unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, stated in Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  33. in value as a consequence of regulation. But that has never been a barrier to the exercise of the police power. L'Hote v. New
    Search
  34. Hebe Co. v. Shaw
    Search
  35. Pierce Oil Corp. v. City
    Search
  36. Hamilton v. Kentucky
    Search
  37. Euclid v. Ambler
    Search
  38. in this regard by the Fifth Amendment are no greater than those imposed on the States by the Fourteenth. Hamilton v. Kentucky
    Search
  39. U. S. 100 , 657. It is implicit in cases such as Nebbia v. New
    Search
  40. which involved the power of New York to fix the minimum and maximum prices of milk, and Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins
    Search
  41. valid, was improper because it was on a class, rather than an individual, basis. Indeed, the decision in Munn v. Illinois
    Search
  42. legislation. Congress was dealing here with conditions created by activities resulting from a great war effort. Yakus v. United
    Search
  43. as it did for the District of Columbia. See 55 Stat. 788. We agree with the Emergency Court of Appeals ( Avant v. Bowles
    Search
  44. need not make that requirement when it delegates the task to an administrative agency. In Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State
    Search
  45. review comes after the order has been promulgated, and no provision for a stay is made. But as we have held in Yakus v. United
    Search
  46. review satisfies the requirements of due process. As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis for a unanimous Court in Phillips v. Commissioner
    Search
  47. of due process if the opportunity given for the ultimate judicial determination of the liability is adequate. Springer v. United
    Search
  48. Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Bowland
    Search
  49. Language in the cases that due process requires a hearing before the administrative order becomes effective ( Morgan v. United
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Bowles v. Willingham
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial