Citation network
Fleming Vs. Mohawk Wrecking and Lumber Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 1947
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
-
Fleming v. MohawkSearch
-
Wrecking & Lumber Co. - 331 U.S. 111 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Fleming v. MohawkSearch
-
Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111 (1947) Fleming v. MohawkSearch
-
the Price Administrator could delegate to district directors authority to sign and issue subpoenas. Cudahy Packing Co. v. HollandSearch
-
The cessation of hostilities does not necessarily end the war power. It was stated in Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
and continues during that emergency. Stewart v. KahnSearch
-
by the Chief Executive, being both contemporaneous and consistent, is entitled to great weight. See United States v. JacksonSearch
-
for the use of such agencies stands as confirmation and ratification of the action of the Chief Executive. Brooks v. DewarSearch
-
California Lima Bean Growers Assn. v. BowlesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
an acceptance or ratification by Congress of the President's action in Executive Order No. 9809. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
is still in effect. Liabilities incurred prior to the lifting of controls are not thereby washed out. United States v. HarkSearch
-
The Court held in Cudahy Packing Co. v. HollandSearch
-
unless, by express provision of the Act or by implication, it has been withheld. See Plapao Laboratories, Inc. v. FarleySearch
-
a) and (b) should not be read restrictively. As stated by the court in Porter v. MurraySearch
-
subpoena power. The other objections to the subpoenas are without merit. We reverse the judgment in Fleming v. MohawkSearch
-
Wrecking and Lumber Co., and affirm the judgment in Raley v. FlemingSearch
-
Together with No. 512, Raley et al., trading as Raley's Food Store v. FlemingSearch
-
Compare Porter v. AmericanSearch
-
Porter v. BowersSearch
-
F.Supp. 751, and Bowles v. Ell-CarrSearch
-
Co., Inc., 71 F.Supp. 482, with Porter v. WilsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 447, and Porter v. HiraharaSearch
-
independent inquiry before enforcement, and I have thought we were tending that way, cf. dissent in Penfield Co. v. SECSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Fleming v. MohawkSearch
-
Cudahy Packing Co. v. HollandSearch
-
Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
Stewart v. KahnSearch
-
See United States v. JacksonSearch
-
of the Chief Executive. Brooks v. DewarSearch
-
Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Plapao Laboratories, Inc. v. FarleySearch
-
Porter v. MurraySearch
-
Raley v. FlemingSearch
-
Raley's Food Store v. FlemingSearch
-
and Bowles v. Ell-CarrSearch
-
Porter v. WilsonSearch
-
and Porter v. HiraharaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial