Bowles, Adm'r. v. Lombardi

Oregon Supreme Court

Bowles, Adm'r. v. Lombardi

191 P.2d 379, 183 Or. 145, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 156

DecidedFebruary 17, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 191 P.2d 379 (Bowles, Adm'r. v. Lombardi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles, Adm'r. v. Lombardi, 191 P.2d 379, 183 Or. 145, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 156 (Or. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

BAILEY, J.

This action was instituted on the 26th day of February, 1945, by Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, pursuant to §205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act (56 Stat. 23) as amended (58 Stat. 632, 50 U. S. C. A. App. Supp. V, 901, et seq.), against Martin Lombardi, doing business as the Hotel Australian, to recover statutory damages for overceiling rents allegedly collected *146 by defendant in violation of tbe applicable' rent regulations.

The facts, so far as material on this appeal, and the legal questions are the same as those set forth in the Mittleman case this day decided, wherein our views on the numerous matters therein and here involved are set forth at length. The decision in that case is here controlling. Therefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

BAILEY, J.

This action was instituted on the 26th day of February, 1945, by Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, pursuant to §205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act (56 Stat. 23) as amended (58 Stat. 632, 50 U. S. C. A. App. Supp. V, 901, et seq.), against Martin Lombardi, doing business as the Hotel Australian, to recover statutory damages for overceiling rents allegedly collected *146 by defendant in violation of tbe applicable' rent regulations.

The facts, so far as material on this appeal, and the legal questions are the same as those set forth in the Mittleman case this day decided, wherein our views on the numerous matters therein and here involved are set forth at length. The decision in that case is here controlling. Therefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 P.2d 379, 183 Or. 145, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-admr-v-lombardi-or-1948.