Crane v. Johnson

S.D. California

Crane v. Johnson

233 F. 334, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1566

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedApril 8, 1916

DocketNos. C-18, C-19

StatusPublished

This text of 233 F. 334 (Crane v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crane v. Johnson, 233 F. 334, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1566 (S.D. Cal. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

[1] Upon the authority of the cases of William Truax, Sr., and Others, v. Mike Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 7, 60 L. Ed. 131, and Raich v. Truax (D. C.) 219 Fed. 273, 283, we think the jurisdiction of the District Court over the present suits is clear. We have, therefore, only to determine whether, upon the bill, the complainant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction.

[2, 3] The rule is well settled that the granting of such orders is within the sound discretion of the court, and in the exercise of such discretion, based upon the averments of the bills, we are of the opinion that the application should be denied. We do not understand that, upon such an application as the present, the court, composed, under statutory requirement, of the judge of the District Court, of another District Judge, and a Circuit Judge, is called upon, if, indeed, authorized, to decide the merits of the suits.

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

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

[1] Upon the authority of the cases of William Truax, Sr., and Others, v. Mike Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 7, 60 L. Ed. 131, and Raich v. Truax (D. C.) 219 Fed. 273, 283, we think the jurisdiction of the District Court over the present suits is clear. We have, therefore, only to determine whether, upon the bill, the complainant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction.

[2, 3] The rule is well settled that the granting of such orders is within the sound discretion of the court, and in the exercise of such discretion, based upon the averments of the bills, we are of the opinion that the application should be denied. We do not understand that, upon such an application as the present, the court, composed, under statutory requirement, of the judge of the District Court, of another District Judge, and a Circuit Judge, is called upon, if, indeed, authorized, to decide the merits of the suits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 F. 334, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-johnson-casd-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack