Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Mutual Orange Distributors

Supreme Court

Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Mutual Orange Distributors

318 U.S. 744, 63 S. Ct. 849

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 5, 1943·No. No. 288·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion to vacate the judgment is granted. The judgment of the District Court is vacated, without costs to either party in this Court, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint as moot. United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 477-8; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; Paramount Pictures v. Langer, 306 U. S. 619; Retail Food Clerks & Managers Union v. Union [745] Premier Food Stores, 308 U. S. 526.

Messrs. Earl Warren, Attorney General of California, and Walter L. Bowers, Deputy Attorney General, for appellants. Mr. Guy Richards Crump for appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The motion to vacate the judgment is granted. The judgment of the District Court is vacated, without costs to either party in this Court, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint as moot. United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 477-8; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; Paramount Pictures v. Langer, 306 U. S. 619; Retail Food Clerks & Managers Union v. Union [745] Premier Food Stores, 308 U. S. 526.

Messrs. Earl Warren, Attorney General of California, and Walter L. Bowers, Deputy Attorney General, for appellants. Mr. Guy Richards Crump for appellees.

Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Mutual Orange Distributors, 318 U.S. 744, 63 S. Ct. 849 (1943).

Pincite

318 U.S. 744 (Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Mutual Orange Distributors) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related