Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Case Vs. Bowles

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 04, 1946

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

42 entries 6 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Bowles Vs. Willingham US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1944
    Relied / Followed
  2. Allen Vs. Regents US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
    Relied / Followed
  3. Ames Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1884
  4. Fernandez Vs. Wiener US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1945
  5. Cooper Vs. Roberts US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
  6. Hines Vs. Davidowitz US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1941
  7. U.S. 92 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Case v. Bowles
    Search
  8. U.S. 92 (1946) Case v. Bowles
    Search
  9. not bar the sale of school land timber at a price above the ceiling fixed pursuant to that Act, Soundview. Pulp Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  10. Emergency Price Control Act did not bar the sale of school land timber at prices above the ceiling. Soundview Pulp Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  11. F.2d 777. Because the Circuit Court's decision conflicted with that of the Supreme Court of Idaho in Twin Falls County v. Hulbert
    Search
  12. Query v. United
    Search
  13. To that extent, section 205(c) of the Price Control Act supersedes section 233 of the Judicial Code. United States v. California
    Search
  14. has granted exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine this question to the Emergency Court of Appeals. Lockerty v. Phillips
    Search
  15. it does not deny him the right to attack the Emergency Price Control Act itself on Constitutional grounds. Yakus v. United
    Search
  16. state, like those here involved, transferred exclusive ownership and control over those lands to the state. Cooper v. Roberts
    Search
  17. the ceiling price fixed by the Administrator is Constitutionally invalid as applied to privately owned timber. Yakus v. United
    Search
  18. and we reject it as a guide in the field here involved. Cf. United States v. California
    Search
  19. would be to read it as a self-defeating charter. It has never been so interpreted. Since the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  20. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would reverse the judgment for the reasons act forth in his dissenting opinion in Hulbert v. Twin
    Search
  21. United States v. Louisiana
    Search
  22. United States v. California
    Search
  23. Ohio v. Helvering
    Search
  24. California v. United
    Search
  25. The Emergency Court of Appeals recently considered the same question and reached the same conclusion. Dallas v. Bowles
    Search
  26. See the several opinions in Saratoga Springs Co. v. United
    Search
  27. Oklahoma v. Atkinson
    Search
  28. For application of this principle see Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  29. Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Case v. Bowles
    Search
  31. Act, Soundview. Pulp Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  32. Soundview Pulp Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  33. Twin Falls County v. Hulbert
    Search
  34. of the Judicial Code. United States v. California
    Search
  35. the Emergency Court of Appeals. Lockerty v. Phillips
    Search
  36. Yakus v. United
    Search
  37. Cf. United States v. California
    Search
  38. McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  39. Hulbert v. Twin
    Search
  40. Dallas v. Bowles
    Search
  41. Saratoga Springs Co. v. United
    Search
  42. United States v. Darby
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial